171
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    1
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Clear, transparent, and sufficiently detailed abstracts of conferences and journal articles related to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important, because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on information in the abstract. Here, we extend the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement to develop a minimum list of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting the results of a RCT in any journal or conference abstract.

          Methods and Findings

          We generated a list of items from existing quality assessment tools and empirical evidence. A three-round, modified-Delphi process was used to select items. In all, 109 participants were invited to participate in an electronic survey; the response rate was 61%. Survey results were presented at a meeting of the CONSORT Group in Montebello, Canada, January 2007, involving 26 participants, including clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical editors. Checklist items were discussed for eligibility into the final checklist. The checklist was then revised to ensure that it reflected discussions held during and subsequent to the meeting. CONSORT for Abstracts recommends that abstracts relating to RCTs have a structured format. Items should include details of trial objectives; trial design (e.g., method of allocation, blinding/masking); trial participants (i.e., description, numbers randomized, and number analyzed); interventions intended for each randomized group and their impact on primary efficacy outcomes and harms; trial conclusions; trial registration name and number; and source of funding. We recommend the checklist be used in conjunction with this explanatory document, which includes examples of good reporting, rationale, and evidence, when available, for the inclusion of each item.

          Conclusions

          CONSORT for Abstracts aims to improve reporting of abstracts of RCTs published in journal articles and conference proceedings. It will help authors of abstracts of these trials provide the detail and clarity needed by readers wishing to assess a trial's validity and the applicability of its results.

          Abstract

          The authors extend the CONSORT Statement to develop a minimum list of essential items to consider when reporting the results of a randomized trial in any journal or conference abstract.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

          To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support. Medline (January 1966 to December 2002) and Embase (January 1980 to December 2002) searches were supplemented with material identified in the references and in the authors' personal files. Data were independently abstracted by three of the authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus. 30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality. Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Med
                pmed
                plme
                plosmed
                PLoS Medicine
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1549-1277
                1549-1676
                January 2008
                22 January 2008
                : 5
                : 1
                : e20
                Affiliations
                [1 ] UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Wolfson College, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [3 ] School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
                [4 ] Chalmers Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
                [5 ] Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
                [6 ] Sideview, Princes Risborough, United Kingdom
                [7 ] Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
                [8 ] Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, United States of America
                University of Bern, Switzerland
                Author notes
                * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: shopewell@ 123456cochrane.co.uk
                Article
                07-PLME-RA-1675R1 plme-05-01-13
                10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020
                2211558
                18215107
                b135386b-0460-4ade-a9e9-8644d1223264
                Copyright: © 2008 Hopewell et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
                History
                : 3 October 2007
                : 7 December 2007
                Page count
                Pages: 9
                Categories
                Research Article
                Non-Clinical Medicine
                Research Methods
                Medical Journals
                Clinical Trials
                Research Design
                Academic Medicine
                Custom metadata
                Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, et al. (2008) CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med 5(1): e20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article