110
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement

      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 The CONSORT statement is intended to improve reporting of randomised controlled trials and focuses on minimising the risk of bias (internal validity). The applicability of a trial’s results (generalisability or external validity) is also important, particularly for pragmatic trials. A pragmatic trial (a term first used in 1967 by Schwartz and Lellouch) can be broadly defined as a randomised controlled trial whose purpose is to inform decisions about practice. This extension of the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of such trials and focuses on applicability.

          Methods At two, two-day meetings held in Toronto in 2005 and 2008, we reviewed the CONSORT statement and its extensions, the literature on pragmatic trials and applicability, and our experiences in conducting pragmatic trials.

          Recommendations We recommend extending eight CONSORT checklist items for reporting of pragmatic trials: the background, participants, interventions, outcomes, sample size, blinding, participant flow, and generalisability of the findings. These extensions are presented, along with illustrative examples of reporting, and an explanation of each extension. Adherence to these reporting criteria will make it easier for decision makers to judge how applicable the results of randomised controlled trials are to their own conditions. Empirical studies are needed to ascertain the usefulness and comprehensiveness of these CONSORT checklist item extensions. In the meantime we recommend that those who support, conduct, and report pragmatic trials should use this extension of the CONSORT statement to facilitate the use of trial results in decisions about health care.

          Abstract

          Pragmatic trials are designed to inform decisions about practice, but poor reporting can reduce their usefulness. The CONSORT and Practihc groups describe modifications to the CONSORT guidelines to help readers assess the applicability of the results

          Related collections

          Most cited references 48

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

          The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials.

          To comprehend the results of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through total transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by use of a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented here incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting this information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect, or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly shows the number of participants, for each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have done an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review.

            Selective eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are vital to trial feasibility and internal validity. However, the exclusion of certain patient populations may lead to impaired generalizability of results. To determine the nature and extent of exclusion criteria among RCTs published in major medical journals and the contribution of exclusion criteria to the representation of certain patient populations. The MEDLINE database was searched for RCTs published between 1994 and 2006 in certain general medical journals with a high impact factor. Of 4827 articles, 283 were selected using a series technique. Trial characteristics and the details regarding exclusions were extracted independently. All exclusion criteria were graded independently and in duplicate as either strongly justified, potentially justified, or poorly justified according to previously developed and pilot-tested guidelines. Common medical conditions formed the basis for exclusion in 81.3% of trials. Patients were excluded due to age in 72.1% of all trials (60.1% in pediatric populations and 38.5% in older adults). Individuals receiving commonly prescribed medications were excluded in 54.1% of trials. Conditions related to female sex were grounds for exclusion in 39.2% of trials. Of all exclusion criteria, only 47.2% were graded as strongly justified in the context of the specific RCT. Exclusion criteria were not reported in 12.0% of trials. Multivariable analyses revealed independent associations between the total number of exclusion criteria and drug intervention trials (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.65; P = .003) and between the total number of exclusion criteria and multicenter trials (risk ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.52; P = .009). Industry-sponsored trials were more likely to exclude individuals due to concomitant medication use, medical comorbidities, and age. Drug intervention trials were more likely to exclude individuals due to concomitant medication use, medical comorbidities, female sex, and socioeconomic status. Among such trials, justification for exclusions related to concomitant medication use and comorbidities were more likely to be poorly justified. The RCTs published in major medical journals do not always clearly report exclusion criteria. Women, children, the elderly, and those with common medical conditions are frequently excluded from RCTs. Trials with multiple centers and those involving drug interventions are most likely to have extensive exclusions. Such exclusions may impair the generalizability of RCT results. These findings highlight a need for careful consideration and transparent reporting and justification of exclusion criteria in clinical trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Rates of hyperkalemia after publication of the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study.

              The Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study (RALES) demonstrated that spironolactone significantly improves outcomes in patients with severe heart failure. Use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors is also indicated in these patients. However, life-threatening hyperkalemia can occur when these drugs are used together. We conducted a population-based time-series analysis to examine trends in the rate of spironolactone prescriptions and the rate of hospitalization for hyperkalemia in ambulatory patients before and after the publication of RALES. We linked prescription-claims data and hospital-admission records for more than 1.3 million adults 66 years of age or older in Ontario, Canada, for the period from 1994 through 2001. Among patients treated with ACE inhibitors who had recently been hospitalized for heart failure, the spironolactone-prescription rate was 34 per 1000 patients in 1994, and it increased immediately after the publication of RALES, to 149 per 1000 patients by late 2001 (P<0.001). The rate of hospitalization for hyperkalemia rose from 2.4 per 1000 patients in 1994 to 11.0 per 1000 patients in 2001 (P<0.001), and the associated mortality rose from 0.3 per 1000 to 2.0 per 1000 patients (P<0.001). As compared with expected numbers of events, there were 560 (95 percent confidence interval, 285 to 754) additional hyperkalemia-related hospitalizations and 73 (95 percent confidence interval, 27 to 120) additional hospital deaths during 2001 among older patients with heart failure who were treated with ACE inhibitors in Ontario. Publication of RALES was not associated with significant decreases in the rates of readmission for heart failure or death from all causes. The publication of RALES was associated with abrupt increases in the rate of prescriptions for spironolactone and in hyperkalemia-associated morbidity and mortality. Closer laboratory monitoring and more judicious use of spironolactone may reduce the occurrence of this complication. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: director
                Role: senior research fellow
                Role: post-graduate fellow
                Role: director
                Role: director
                Role: Michael Gent professor and chair
                Role: senior researcher
                Role: senior scientist
                Journal
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1468-5833
                2008
                2008
                11 November 2008
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health Services Sciences, Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto
                [3 ]Division of International Health (IHCAR), Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
                [4 ]Clinical and Population Sciences and Education, University of Dundee, Dundee
                [5 ]Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway
                [6 ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto
                [7 ]Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford
                [8 ]Center for Medical Technology Policy, Baltimore, MD, USA
                [9 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
                [10 ]Center for Healthcare Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA
                [11 ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Medicine, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [12 ]Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
                [13 ]Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: M Zwarenstein merrick.zwarenstein@ 123456ices.on.ca
                Article
                zwam585547
                10.1136/bmj.a2390
                3266844
                19001484
                © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2008
                Product
                Categories
                Research Methods & Reporting

                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article