CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts

Explanation and elaboration

Sally Hopewell, Mike Clarke, David Moher, Elizabeth Wager, Philippa Middleton, Douglas G. Altman, Kenneth F. Schulz, Virginia Babour, Jesse Berlin, Isabelle Boutron, Denis Diderot, D. J. Devereaux, Kay Dickersin, Diana Elbourne, Susan Ellenberg, Val Gebski, Steven Goodman, Peter C. Gøtzsche, Trish Groves, Steven Grunberg & 10 others Brian Haynes, Astrid James, Peter Juhn, Don Minckle, Victor Manuel Montori, Cynthia Mulro, Stuart Pocock, Drummond Rennie, David Schriger, I. Iveta Simera

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)221-232
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Chinese Integrative Medicine
Volume6
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 15 2008

Fingerprint

Checklist
Randomized Controlled Trials
Canada
Names
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Abstracts
  • Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
  • Journal article
  • Randomized controlled trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Complementary and alternative medicine

Cite this

CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts : Explanation and elaboration. / Hopewell, Sally; Clarke, Mike; Moher, David; Wager, Elizabeth; Middleton, Philippa; Altman, Douglas G.; Schulz, Kenneth F.; Babour, Virginia; Berlin, Jesse; Boutron, Isabelle; Diderot, Denis; Devereaux, D. J.; Dickersin, Kay; Elbourne, Diana; Ellenberg, Susan; Gebski, Val; Goodman, Steven; Gøtzsche, Peter C.; Groves, Trish; Grunberg, Steven; Haynes, Brian; James, Astrid; Juhn, Peter; Minckle, Don; Montori, Victor Manuel; Mulro, Cynthia; Pocock, Stuart; Rennie, Drummond; Schriger, David; Simera, I. Iveta.

In: Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 3, 15.03.2008, p. 221-232.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hopewell, S, Clarke, M, Moher, D, Wager, E, Middleton, P, Altman, DG, Schulz, KF, Babour, V, Berlin, J, Boutron, I, Diderot, D, Devereaux, DJ, Dickersin, K, Elbourne, D, Ellenberg, S, Gebski, V, Goodman, S, Gøtzsche, PC, Groves, T, Grunberg, S, Haynes, B, James, A, Juhn, P, Minckle, D, Montori, VM, Mulro, C, Pocock, S, Rennie, D, Schriger, D & Simera, II 2008, 'CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: Explanation and elaboration', Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 221-232. https://doi.org/10.3736/jcim20080301
Hopewell, Sally ; Clarke, Mike ; Moher, David ; Wager, Elizabeth ; Middleton, Philippa ; Altman, Douglas G. ; Schulz, Kenneth F. ; Babour, Virginia ; Berlin, Jesse ; Boutron, Isabelle ; Diderot, Denis ; Devereaux, D. J. ; Dickersin, Kay ; Elbourne, Diana ; Ellenberg, Susan ; Gebski, Val ; Goodman, Steven ; Gøtzsche, Peter C. ; Groves, Trish ; Grunberg, Steven ; Haynes, Brian ; James, Astrid ; Juhn, Peter ; Minckle, Don ; Montori, Victor Manuel ; Mulro, Cynthia ; Pocock, Stuart ; Rennie, Drummond ; Schriger, David ; Simera, I. Iveta. / CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts : Explanation and elaboration. In: Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine. 2008 ; Vol. 6, No. 3. pp. 221-232.
@article{12ebdbde15f14952a496045c7232f99e,
title = "CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: Explanation and elaboration",
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.",
keywords = "Abstracts, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Journal article, Randomized controlled trials",
author = "Sally Hopewell and Mike Clarke and David Moher and Elizabeth Wager and Philippa Middleton and Altman, {Douglas G.} and Schulz, {Kenneth F.} and Virginia Babour and Jesse Berlin and Isabelle Boutron and Denis Diderot and Devereaux, {D. J.} and Kay Dickersin and Diana Elbourne and Susan Ellenberg and Val Gebski and Steven Goodman and G{\o}tzsche, {Peter C.} and Trish Groves and Steven Grunberg and Brian Haynes and Astrid James and Peter Juhn and Don Minckle and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Cynthia Mulro and Stuart Pocock and Drummond Rennie and David Schriger and Simera, {I. Iveta}",
year = "2008",
month = "3",
day = "15",
doi = "10.3736/jcim20080301",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "221--232",
journal = "Journal of integrative medicine",
issn = "2095-4964",
publisher = "Science Press (China)",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts

T2 - Explanation and elaboration

AU - Hopewell, Sally

AU - Clarke, Mike

AU - Moher, David

AU - Wager, Elizabeth

AU - Middleton, Philippa

AU - Altman, Douglas G.

AU - Schulz, Kenneth F.

AU - Babour, Virginia

AU - Berlin, Jesse

AU - Boutron, Isabelle

AU - Diderot, Denis

AU - Devereaux, D. J.

AU - Dickersin, Kay

AU - Elbourne, Diana

AU - Ellenberg, Susan

AU - Gebski, Val

AU - Goodman, Steven

AU - Gøtzsche, Peter C.

AU - Groves, Trish

AU - Grunberg, Steven

AU - Haynes, Brian

AU - James, Astrid

AU - Juhn, Peter

AU - Minckle, Don

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Mulro, Cynthia

AU - Pocock, Stuart

AU - Rennie, Drummond

AU - Schriger, David

AU - Simera, I. Iveta

PY - 2008/3/15

Y1 - 2008/3/15

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Abstracts

KW - Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

KW - Journal article

KW - Randomized controlled trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=41149104928&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=41149104928&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3736/jcim20080301

DO - 10.3736/jcim20080301

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 221

EP - 232

JO - Journal of integrative medicine

JF - Journal of integrative medicine

SN - 2095-4964

IS - 3

ER -