The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title , Abstract , Introduction , Methods , Results , Discussion , and Other information. These links will open a dynamic application we have created that allows you to explore and interact with the CONSORT checklist and all of its extensions.
One feature of the original CONSORT Statement in , shared by its two precursors , was the near absence of any explanation of the concepts or justification for the importance of specific information being needed in reports of randomized trials. It was recommended that the value of the CONSORT Statement, and probably also its acceptability, could be enhanced by the development of a second publication that clarified the scientific background and explained why each issue was important Therefore when the CONSORT Statement was revised in , the opportunity was taken to develop, in parallel to the revised checklist, a detailed explanatory document.
It was recognized as an important innovation and the idea has subsequently been taken up by other reporting guideline groups For each item, key methodological issues are explained and a summary of the empirical evidence about the importance of reporting that item is provided.
Examples of clear reporting are also given for each checklist item. Sign In. Ann Int Med ; Epub 24 March. Background: An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials RCTs is not optimal has accrued over time. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March , is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation.
In , a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published. Objectives: To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the and CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.
Search methods: We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January and March , inclusive.
We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group s , but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation.
Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment. One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors.
We resolved all conflicts by consensus.
0コメント