Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement

Randomised controlled trials are the best way to compare the effectiveness of different interventions. Only randomised trials allow valid inferences of cause and effect. Only randomised trials have the potential directly to affect patient care—occasionally as single trials but more often as the body of evidence from several trials, whether or not combined formally by meta-analysis. It is thus entirely reasonable to require higher standards for papers reporting randomised trials than those describing other types of study. Like all studies, randomised trials are open to bias if done badly.1 It is thus essential that randomised trials are done well and reported adequately. Readers should not have to infer what was probably done, they should be told explicitly. Proper methodology should be used and be seen to have been used. Yet reviews of published trials have consistently found major deficiencies in reporting,2 3 4 making the task …

[1]  Ross D. Shachter,et al.  A Bayesian Method for Synthesizing Evidence: The Confidence Profile Method , 1990, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[2]  R. Simon,et al.  Bayesian subset analysis in a colorectal cancer clinical trial. , 1992, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Modelling Complexity: Applications of Gibbs Sampling in Medicine , 1993 .

[4]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[5]  Curtis L. Meinert,et al.  A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. , 1994, JAMA.

[6]  D. Titterington,et al.  Comparison of Discrimination Techniques Applied to a Complex Data Set of Head Injured Patients , 1981 .

[7]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[8]  D G Altman,et al.  Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. , 1994, JAMA.

[9]  P. Thall,et al.  Bayesian sequential monitoring designs for single-arm clinical trials with multiple outcomes. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  Anastasios A. Tsiatis,et al.  Exact confidence intervals following a group sequential trial: A comparison of methods , 1988 .

[11]  S. Pocock,et al.  Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  D. Rennie.  Reporting randomized controlled trials. An experiment and a call for responses from readers. , 1995, JAMA.

[13]  F. Mosteller,et al.  Reporting standards and research strategies for controlled trials , 1980 .

[14]  N. D’Esopo,et al.  STREPTOMYCIN TREATMENT OF PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS , 1998, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[15]  R J Lilford,et al.  For Debate: The statistical basis of public policy: a paradigm shift is overdue , 1996, BMJ.

[16]  M J Campbell,et al.  Use of check lists in assessing the statistical content of medical studies. , 1986, British medical journal.

[17]  A. Smith,et al.  Detection of renal allograft rejection by computer. , 1983, British medical journal.

[18]  K. Schulz,et al.  Subverting randomization in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[19]  G. Sutton.  Computer aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain , 1986, British medical journal.

[20]  A S Detsky,et al.  Using economic analysis to determine the resource consequences of choices made in planning clinical trials. , 1985, Journal of chronic diseases.

[21]  J O'Quigley,et al.  Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. , 1990, Biometrics.