encourage journals to include reference to this document in
their Instructions to Contributors.
Emphasising the evolving nature of CONSORT, the
CONSORT group invites readers to comment on the
updated checklist and flow diagram through the
CONSORT website.
13
Comments and suggestions will be
collated and considered at the next meeting of the group in
2001.
Contributors
David Moher, Ken Schulz, and Doug Altman participated in regular
conference calls, identified participants, participated in the CONSORT
meetings, and drafted the paper. David Moher and Leah Lepage planned
the CONSORT meetings, identified and secured funding, invited the
participants, and planned the meeting agenda. The members of the
CONSORT group listed below attended the CONSORT meetings and
provided input towards the revised checklist, flow diagram, and text.
The CONSORT group
Frank Davidoff (Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA);
Susan Eastwood (University of California at San Francisco, CA, USA);
Matthias Egger (Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol,
UK); Diana Elbourne (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,
London, UK); Peter Gøtzsche (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen,
Denmark); Sylvan B Green (School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve
University, Cleveland, OH, USA); Leni Grossman (Merck & Co,
Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA); Barbara S Hawkins (Wilmer Ophthal-
mological Institute, Johns Hopkins University, (Baltimore, MD, USA);
Richard Horton (The Lancet, London, UK); Wayne B Jonas (Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD); Terry Klassen
(Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada); Leah Lepage (Thomas C Chalmers Centre for Systematic
Reviews, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada); Thomas Lang (Tom Lang
Communications, Lakewood, OH, USA); Jeroen Lijmer (Department of
Clinical Epidemiology, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands);
Rick Malone (TAP Pharmaceuticals, Lake Forest, IL, USA);
Curtis L Meinert (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD);
Mary Mosley (Life Science Publishing, Tokyo, Japan); Stuart Pocock
(London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London); Drummond
Rennie (Journal of the American Medical Association, Chicago, IL);
David S Riley (University of New Mexico Medical School, Santa Fe, NM,
USA); Roberta W Scherer (Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine,
University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD); Ida Sim
(University of California at San Francisco, CA); Donna Stroup
(Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA).
Acknowledgments
The effort to improve the reporting of randomised trials, from its beginnings
with the Standards of Reporting Trials (SORT) group to the current
activities of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)
group, has involved many people around the globe. We thank Leah Lepage
for keeping everybody all lined up and moving in the same direction.
Financial support to convene meetings of the CONSORT group was
provided in part by Abbott Laboratories, American College of Physicians,
GlaxoWellcome, The Lancet, Merck, the Canadian Institutes for Health
Research, National Library of Medicine, and TAP Pharmaceuticals.
References
1 Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence
of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with
estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;
273: 408–12.
2 Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does the quality of reports of
randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in
meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352: 609–13.
3 Jadad AR, Boyle M, Cunningham C, Kim M, Schachar R. Treatment
of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: evidence report/technology
assessment no 11. Hamilton: McMaster University, 2000.
4 Thornley B, Adams CE. Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in
schizophrenia over 50 years. BMJ 1998; 317: 1181–84.
5 Hotopf M, Lewis G, Normand C. Putting trials on trial—the costs and
consequences of small trials in depression: a systematic review of
methodology. J Epidemiol Community Health 1997; 51: 354–58.
6 Dickinson K, Bunn F, Wentz R, Edwards P, Roberts I. Size and quality
of randomised controlled trials in head injury: review of published
studies. BMJ 2000; 320: 1308–11.
7 Begg CB, Cho MK, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of
reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement.
JAMA 1996; 276: 637–39.
8 Freemantle N, Mason JM, Haines A, Eccles MP. CONSORT: an
important step toward evidence-based health care. Ann Intern Med
1997; 126: 81–83.
9 Altman DG. Better reporting of randomized controlled trials: the
CONSORT statement. BMJ 1996; 313: 570–71.
10 Schulz KF. The quest for unbiased research: randomized clinical trials
and the CONSORT reporting guidelines. Ann Neurol 1997; 41: 569–73.
11 Huston P. Hoey J. CMAJ endorses the CONSORT statement.
Can Med Assoc J 1996; 155: 1277–79.
12 Davidoff F. News from the International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 229–31.
13 www.consort-statement.org (accessed Feb 15, 2001).
14 Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, for the CONSORT Group. Use of
CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a
comparative before and after evaluation? JAMA (in press).
15 Egger M, Juni P, Bartiett C, for the CONSORT Group. The value of
patient flow charts in reports of randomized controlled trials:
bibliographic study. JAMA (in press).
16 Meinert CL. Beyond CONSORT: need for improved reporting
standards for clinical trials. JAMA 1998; 279: 1487–89.
17 Chalmers I. Current Controlled Trials: an opportunity to help
improve the quality of clinical research. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc
Med 2000; 1: 3–8.
18 Bailer JC III, Mosteller F. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles
for medical journals: amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med
1988; 108: 266–73.
19 Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al, for the CONSORT group.
The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials:
explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 663–94.
20 Elbourne DR, Campbell MK. Extending the CONSORT statement to
cluster randomised trials: for discussion. Stat Med (in press).
21 Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention-to-treat analysis?
Survey of published randomized controlled trials. BMJ 1999; 319:
670–74.
22 Ruiz-Canela M. Martinez-Gonzalez MA, de Irala-Estevez J. Intention-
to-treat analysis is related to methodological quality. BMJ 2000; 320:
1007.
23 Lee YJ, Ellenberg JH, Hirtz DG, Nelson KB. Analysis of clinical trials
by treatment actually received: is it really an option? Stat Med 1991; 10:
1595–605.
24 Bentzen SM. Towards evidence based radiation oncology: improving
the design, analysis, and reporting of clinical outcome studies in
radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 1998; 46: 5–18.
25 O’Toole LB. MRC uses checklist similar to CONSORT’s. BMJ 1997;
314: 1127.
26 Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, for the
QUOROM group. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of
randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;
354: 1896–900.
27 Stroup DF, Berlin IA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational
studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000; 283:
2008–12.
28 Siegel IE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for
reporting cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 1996; 276: 1339–41.
29 Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Bell CM.
The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997.
Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 964–72.
30 Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994; 308:
283–84.