Consort transparent reporting of trials

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Syndicate. More HIV Topics. Links with this icon indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.

You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link. CDC is not responsible for Section compliance accessibility on other federal or private website.

Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' RR 1. Authors' conclusions: Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals.

Abstract Background: An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials RCTs is not optimal has accrued over time. Publication types Research Support, Non-U.

Gov't Review Systematic Review. 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.