SPECIAL ARTICLE
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 1  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 100-107 Table of Contents     

CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials


1 Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
2 Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Wolfson College, Oxford, United Kingdom
3 Ottawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Date of Web Publication10-Nov-2010

Correspondence Address:
Kenneth F Schulz
Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
USA
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/0976-500X.72352

PMID: 21350618

Get Permissions


How to cite this article:
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2010;1:100-7

How to cite this URL:
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother [serial online] 2010 [cited 2014 Oct 21];1:100-7. Available from: http://www.jpharmacol.com/text.asp?2010/1/2/100/72352


   Introduction Top


Randomised controlled trials, when appropriately designed, conducted and reported, represent the gold standard in evaluating healthcare interventions. However, randomised trials can yield biased results if they lack methodological rigour. [1] To assess a trial accurately, readers of a published report need complete, clear and transparent information on its methodology and findings. Unfortunately, attempted assessments frequently fail because authors of many trial reports neglect to provide lucid and complete descriptions of that critical information. [2],[3],[4]

That lack of adequate reporting fuelled the development of the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement in 1996 [5] and its revision five years later. [6],[7],[8] While those statements improved the reporting quality for some randomised controlled trials, [9],[10] many trial reports still remain inadequate. [2] Furthermore, new methodological evidence and additional experience has accumulated since the last revision in 2001. Consequently, we organised a CONSORT Group meeting to update the 2001 statement. [6],[7],[8] We introduce here the result of that process, CONSORT 2010.


   Intent of CONSORT 2010 Top


The CONSORT 2010 Statement is this paper including the 25 item checklist in the [Table 1] and the flow diagram [Figure 1]. It provides guidance for reporting all randomised controlled trials, but focuses on the most common design type-individually randomised, two group, parallel trials. Other trial designs, such as cluster randomised trials and non-inferiority trials, require varying amounts of additional information. CONSORT extensions for these designs, [11],[12] and other CONSORT products, can be found through the CONSORT website ( http://www.consort-statement.org ). Along with the CONSORT statement, we have updated the explanation and elaboration article, [13] which explains the inclusion of each checklist item, provides methodological background and gives published examples of transparent reporting.
Table 1: CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial (for a downloadable version of this checklist see Text S1 or the CONSORT website)*

Click here to view
Figure 1: Flow diagram of the progress through the phases of a parallel randomised trial of two groups (that is, enrolment, intervention allocation, follow-up and data analysis).

Click here to view


Diligent adherence by authors to the checklist items facilitates clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting. Explicit descriptions, not ambiguity or omission, best serve the interests of all readers. Note that the CONSORT 2010 Statement does not include recommendations for designing, conducting and analysing trials. It solely addresses the reporting of what was done and what was found.

Nevertheless, CONSORT does indirectly affect design and conduct. Transparent reporting reveals deficiencies in research if they exist. Thus, investigators who conduct inadequate trials, but who must transparently report, should not be able to pass through the publication process without revelation of their trial's inadequacies. That emerging reality should provide impetus to improved trial design and conduct in the future, a secondary indirect goal of our work. Moreover, CONSORT can help researchers in designing their trial.


   Background to CONSORT Top


Efforts to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials accelerated in the mid-1990s, spurred partly by methodological research. Researchers had shown for many years that authors reported such trials poorly and empirical evidence began to accumulate that some poorly conducted or poorly reported aspects of trials were associated with bias [14] Two initiatives aimed at developing reporting guidelines culminated in one of us (DM) and Drummond Rennie organising the first CONSORT statement in 1996. [5] Further methodological research on similar topics reinforced earlier findings [15] and fed into the revision of 2001. [6],[7],[8] Subsequently, the expanding body of methodological research informed the refinement of CONSORT 2010. More than 700 studies comprise the CONSORT database (located on the CONSORT website), which provides the empirical evidence to underpin the CONSORT initiative.

Indeed, CONSORT Group members continually monitor the literature. Information gleaned from these efforts provides an evidence base on which to update the CONSORT statement. We add, drop, or modify items based on that evidence and the recommendations of the CONSORT Group, an international and eclectic group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists and biomedical editors. The CONSORT Executive (KFS, DGA, DM) strives for a balance of established and emerging researchers. The membership of the group is dynamic. As our work expands in response to emerging projects and needed expertise, we invite new members to contribute. As such, CONSORT continually assimilates new ideas and perspectives. That process informs the continually evolving CONSORT statement.

Over time, CONSORT has garnered much support. More than 400 journals, published around the world and in many languages, have explicitly supported the CONSORT statement. Many other healthcare journals support it without our knowledge. Moreover, thousands more have implicitly supported it with the endorsement of the CONSORT statement by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ( http://www.icmje.org ). Other prominent editorial groups, the Council of Science Editors and the World Association of Medical Editors, officially support CONSORT. That support seems warranted: when used by authors and journals, CONSORT seems to improve reporting. [9]


   Development of CONSORT 2010 Top


Thirty one members of the CONSORT 2010 Group met in Montebello, Canada, in January 2007 to update the 2001 CONSORT statement. In addition to the accumulating evidence relating to existing checklist items, several new issues had come to prominence since 2001. Some participants were given primary responsibility for aggregating and synthesising the relevant evidence on a particular checklist item of interest. Based on that evidence, the group deliberated the value of each item. As in prior CONSORT versions, we kept only those items deemed absolutely fundamental to reporting a randomised controlled trial. Moreover, an item may be fundamental to a trial but not included, such as approval by an institutional ethical review board, because funding bodies strictly enforce ethical review and medical journals usually address reporting ethical review in their instructions for authors. Other items may seem desirable, such as reporting on whether on-site monitoring was done, but a lack of empirical evidence or any consensus on their value cautions against inclusion at this point. The CONSORT 2010 Statement thus addresses the minimum criteria, although that should not deter authors from including other information if they consider it important.

After the meeting, the CONSORT Executive convened teleconferences and meetings to revise the checklist. After seven major iterations, a revised checklist was distributed to the larger group for feedback. With that feedback, the executive met twice in person to consider all the comments and to produce a penultimate version. That served as the basis for writing the first draft of this paper, which was then distributed to the group for feedback. After consideration of their comments, the executive finalised the statement.

The CONSORT Executive then drafted an updated explanation and elaboration manuscript, with assistance from other members of the larger group. The substance of the 2007 CONSORT meeting provided the material for the update. The updated explanation and elaboration manuscript was distributed to the entire group for additions, deletions and changes. That final iterative process converged to the CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration. [13]


   Changes in CONSORT 2010 Top


The revision process resulted in evolutionary, not revolutionary, changes to the checklist [Table 1] and the flow diagram was not modified except for one word [Figure 1]. Moreover, because other reporting guidelines augmenting the checklist refer to item numbers, we kept the existing items under their previous item numbers except for some renumbering of items 2 to 5. We added additional items either as a sub-item under an existing item, an entirely new item number at the end of the checklist, or (with item 3) an interjected item into a renumbered segment. We have summarised the noteworthy general changes in [Box 1] [Additional file 1] and specific changes in [Box 2]. [Additional file 2] The CONSORT website contains a side by side comparison of the 2001 and 2010 versions.


   Implications and Limitations Top


We developed CONSORT 2010 to assist authors in writing reports of randomised controlled trials, editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts for publication and readers in critically appraising published articles. The CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration provides elucidation and context to the checklist items. We strongly recommend using the explanation and elaboration in conjunction with the checklist to foster complete, clear and transparent reporting and aid appraisal of published trial reports.

CONSORT 2010 focuses predominantly on the two group, parallel randomised controlled trial, which accounts for over half of trials in the literature. [2] Most of the items from the CONSORT 2010 Statement, however, pertain to all types of randomised trials. Nevertheless, some types of trials or trial situations dictate the need for additional information in the trial report. When in doubt, authors, editors and readers should consult the CONSORT website for any CONSORT extensions, expansions (amplifications), implementations, or other guidance that may be relevant.

The evidence based approach we have used for CONSORT also served as a model for development of other reporting guidelines, such as for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies evaluating interventions, [16] diagnostic studies, [17] and observational studies. [18] The explicit goal of all these initiatives is to improve reporting. The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network will facilitate development of reporting guidelines and help disseminate the guidelines: http://www.equator-network.org provides information on all reporting guidelines in health research.

With CONSORT 2010, we again intentionally declined to produce a rigid structure for the reporting of randomised trials. Indeed, SORT [19] tried a rigid format and it failed in a pilot run with an editor and authors. [20] Consequently, the format of articles should abide by journal style, editorial directions, the traditions of the research field addressed and, where possible, author preferences. We do not wish to standardise the structure of reporting. Authors should simply address checklist items somewhere in the article, with ample detail and lucidity. That stated, we think that manuscripts benefit from frequent subheadings within the major sections, especially the methods and results sections.

CONSORT urges completeness, clarity and transparency of reporting, which simply reflects the actual trial design and conduct. However, as a potential drawback, a reporting guideline might encourage some authors to report fictitiously the information suggested by the guidance rather than what was actually done. Authors, peer reviewers and editors should vigilantly guard against that potential drawback and refer, for example, to trial protocols, to information on trial registers and to regulatory agency websites. Moreover, the CONSORT 2010 Statement does not include recommendations for designing and conducting randomised trials. The items should elicit clear pronouncements of how and what the authors did, but do not contain any judgments on how and what the authors should have done. Thus, CONSORT 2010 is not intended as an instrument to evaluate the quality of a trial. Nor is it appropriate to use the checklist to construct a "quality score."

Nevertheless, we suggest that researchers begin trials with their end publication in mind. Poor reporting allows authors, intentionally or inadvertently, to escape scrutiny of any weak aspects of their trials. However, with wide adoption of CONSORT by journals and editorial groups, most authors should have to report transparently all important aspects of their trial. The ensuing scrutiny rewards well conducted trials and penalises poorly conducted trials. Thus, investigators should understand the CONSORT 2010 reporting guidelines before starting a trial as a further incentive to design and conduct their trials according to rigorous standards.

CONSORT 2010 supplants the prior version published in 2001. Any support for the earlier version accumulated from journals or editorial groups will automatically extend to this newer version, unless specifically requested otherwise. Journals that do not currently support CONSORT may do so by registering on the CONSORT website. If a journal supports or endorses CONSORT 2010, it should cite one of the original versions of CONSORT 2010, the CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration and the CONSORT website in their "Instructions to authors." We suggest that authors who wish to cite CONSORT should cite this or another of the original journal versions of CONSORT 2010 Statement and, if appropriate, the CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration. [13] All CONSORT material can be accessed through the original publishing journals or the CONSORT website. Groups or individuals who desire to translate the CONSORT 2010 Statement into other languages should first consult the CONSORT policy statement on the website.

We emphasise that CONSORT 2010 represents an evolving guideline. It requires perpetual reappraisal and, if necessary, modifications. In the future we will further revise the CONSORT material considering comments, criticisms, experiences and accumulating new evidence. We invite readers to submit recommendations via the CONSORT website.


   Acknowledgments Top


The CONSORT Group contributors to CONSORT 2010: DG Altman, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford; Virginia Barbour, PLoS Medicine; Jesse A Berlin, Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, USA; Isabelle Boutron, University Paris 7 Denis Diderot, Assistance Publique des Hτpitaux de Paris, INSERM, France; PJ Devereaux, McMaster University, Canada; Kay Dickersin, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA; Diana Elbourne, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Susan Ellenberg, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, USA; Val Gebski, University of Sydney, Australia; Steven Goodman, Journal of the Society for Clinical Trials, USA; Peter C Gψtzsche, Nordic Cochrane Centre, Denmark; Trish Groves, BMJ; Steven Grunberg, American Society of Clinical Oncology, USA; Brian Haynes, McMaster University, Canada; Sally Hopewell, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford; Astrid James, Lancet; Peter Juhn, Johnson and Johnson, USA; Philippa Middleton, University of Adelaide, Australia; Don Minckler, University of California Irvine, USA; D Moher, Ottawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Canada; Victor M Montori, Knowledge and Encounter Research Unit, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, USA; Cynthia Mulrow, Annals of Internal Medicine, USA; Stuart Pocock, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Drummond Rennie, JAMA, USA; David L Schriger, Annals of Emergency Medicine, USA; KF Schulz, Family Health International, USA; Iveta Simera, EQUATOR Network; Elizabeth Wager, Sideview.

Contributors to CONSORT 2010 who did not attend the Montebello meeting: Mike Clarke, UK Cochrane Centre; Gordon Guyatt, McMaster University, Canada.[34]

 
   References Top

1.Jόni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-6.th  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 2005;365:1159-62.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008;336:1472-4.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008;3:e3081.   Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191-4.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:657-62.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987-91.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006;185:263-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: A comparative study of articles indexed by PubMed. BMJ 2010;340:c723.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. CONSORT statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2004;328:702-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 2006;295:1152-60.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gψtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.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.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-13.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. BMJ 2003;326:41-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gψtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007;335:806-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. Standards of Reporting Trials Group. JAMA 1994;272:1926-31.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Rennie D. Reporting randomized controlled trials. An experiment and a call for responses from readers. JAMA 1995;273:1054-5.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet 2008;371:281-3.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Chan AW, Hrσbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gψtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004;291:2457-65.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Sackett DL. Commentary: Measuring the success of blinding in RCTs: Don't, must, can't or needn't? Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:664-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Blinding in randomised trials: Hiding who got what. Lancet 2002;359:696-700.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK, Burns KE, Eggert CH, Briel M, et al. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: A systematic review. JAMA 2005;294:2203-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999;319:670-4.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Nuovo J, Melnikow J, Chang D. Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2002;287:2813-4.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gψtzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:781-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 2004;364:911-2.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167-70.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2008;5:e20.   Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:295-309.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, Moher D, Barnes J, Bombardier C, et al. Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: An elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:364-7.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008;337:a2390.  Back to cited text no. 34
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]


This article has been cited by
1 Informing relatives about their hereditary or familial cancer risk: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Eveline de Geus,Cora M Aalfs,Mathilde GE Verdam,Hanneke CJM de Haes,Ellen MA Smets
Trials. 2014; 15(1): 86
[Pubmed]
2 Preventing vitamin B12 deficiency in South Asian women of childbearing age: a randomised controlled trial comparing an oral vitamin B12 supplement with B12 dietary advice
G J Mearns,J Koziol-McLain,V Obolonkin,E C Rush
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2014;
[Pubmed]
3 A systematic review of Chinese randomized clinical trials of SSRI treatment of depression
Ying Zhang,Thomas Becker,Yongchun Ma,Markus Koesters
BMC Psychiatry. 2014; 14(1)
[Pubmed]
4 A systematic review of benzoyl peroxide for acne vulgaris
Noor Hidayah Mohd Nor,Zoriah Aziz
Journal of Dermatological Treatment. 2013; 24(5): 377
[Pubmed]
5 Deep brain stimulation of the ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule in thalamic pain syndrome: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial
Ela B Plow,Donald A Malone,Andre Machado
Trials. 2013; 14(1): 241
[Pubmed]
6 Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Vertical Scar versus Inverted T–Shaped Reduction Mammaplasty
Achilleas Thoma,Teegan A. Ignacy,Eric K. Duku,Robert S. Patterson,Arianna Dal Cin,Carolyn M. Levis,Charles H. Goldsmith
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2013; 132(1): 48e
[Pubmed]
7 Effective behaviour change techniques in the prevention and management of childhood obesity
J Martin,A Chater,F Lorencatto
International Journal of Obesity. 2013; 37(10): 1287
[Pubmed]
8 Randomized trial of metformin vs insulin in the management of gestational diabetes
Cristiane Pavăo Spaulonci,Lisandra Stein Bernardes,Thatianne Coutheux Trindade,Marcelo Zugaib,Rossana Pulcineli Vieira Francisco
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013; 209(1): 34.e1
[Pubmed]
9 Is intralymphatic immunotherapy ready for clinical use in patients with grass pollen allergy?
Marianne Witten,Hans-Jřrgen Malling,Lars Blom,Britta C. Poulsen,Lars K. Poulsen
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2013; 132(5): 1248
[Pubmed]
10 Nutmeg Extracts for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Study
Shastri Motilal,Rohan G. Maharaj
The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2013; 19(4): 347
[Pubmed]
11 High-intensity vs. sham inspiratory muscle training in patients with chronic heart failure: a prospective randomized trial
E. Marco,A. L. Ramirez-Sarmiento,A. Coloma,M. Sartor,J. Comin-Colet,J. Vila,C. Enjuanes,J. Bruguera,F. Escalada,J. Gea,M. Orozco-Levi
European Journal of Heart Failure. 2013; 15(8): 892
[Pubmed]
12 Randomized clinical trial of fibrin glue versus tacked fixation in laparoscopic groin hernia repair
Mette A. Tolver,Jacob Rosenberg,Poul Juul,Thue Bisgaard
Surgical Endoscopy. 2013; 27(8): 2727
[Pubmed]
13 Sodium Bicarbonate Infusion to Reduce Cardiac Surgery–Associated Acute Kidney Injury
Shay P. McGuinness,Rachael L. Parke,Rinaldo Bellomo,Frank M.P. Van Haren,Michael Bailey
Critical Care Medicine. 2013; 41(7): 1599
[Pubmed]
14 Intervention with feedback using Outcome Questionnaire 45 (OQ-45) in a Swedish psychiatric outpatient population. A randomized controlled trial
Helena Hansson,Jenny Rundberg,Agneta Österling,Agneta Öjehagen,Mats Berglund
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 2013; 67(4): 274
[Pubmed]
15 Randomized controlled trial comparing highly purified (HP-hCG) and recombinant hCG (r-hCG) for triggering ovulation in ART
Marina Bellavia,Christian de Geyter,Isabelle Streuli,Victoria Ibecheole,Martin H. Birkhäuser,Barbara P. S. Cometti,Dominique de Ziegler
Gynecological Endocrinology. 2013; 29(2): 93
[Pubmed]
16 Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification
Danielle Mazza,Phillip Bairstow,Heather Buchan,Samantha Paubrey Chakraborty,Oliver Van Hecke,Cathy Grech,Ilkka Kunnamo
Implementation Science. 2013; 8(1): 32
[Pubmed]
17 Mental Vitality @ Work: The effectiveness of a mental module for workers’ health surveillance for nurses and allied health professionals, comparing two approaches in a cluster-randomised controlled trial
Sarah M. Ketelaar,Karen Nieuwenhuijsen,Fania R. Gärtner,Linda Bolier,Odile Smeets,Judith K. Sluiter
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2013;
[Pubmed]
18 Low-Intensity Self-Management Intervention for Persons With Type 2 Diabetes Using a Mobile Phone-Based Diabetes Diary, With and Without Health Counseling and Motivational Interviewing: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Lis Ribu,Heidi Holmen,Astrid Torbjřrnsen,Astrid Klopstad Wahl,Astrid Grřttland,Milada Cvancarova Smĺstuen,Elisabeth Elind,Trine Strand Bergmo,Elin Breivik,Eirik Ĺrsand
JMIR Research Protocols. 2013; 2(2): e34
[Pubmed]
19 A randomized controlled trial of fetal endoscopic tracheal occlusion versus postnatal management of severe isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia
R. Ruano,C. T. Yoshisaki,M. M. da Silva,M. E. J. Ceccon,M. S. Grasi,U. Tannuri,M. Zugaib
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2012; 39(1): 20
[Pubmed]
20 Systematic Review of Efficacy of Nutraceuticals to Alleviate Clinical Signs of Osteoarthritis
J.-M. Vandeweerd,C. Coisnon,P. Clegg,C. Cambier,A. Pierson,F. Hontoir,C. Saegerman,P. Gustin,S. Buczinski
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. 2012; 26(3): 448
[Pubmed]
21 Narrow Band Imaging for Detection of Dysplasia in Colitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Ana Ignjatovic,James E East,Venkat Subramanian,Noriko Suzuki,Thomas Guenther,Nicky Palmer,Paul Bassett,Krish Ragunath,Brian P Saunders
The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2012; 107(6): 885
[Pubmed]
22 The effect of a comprehensive lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular risk factors in pharmacologically treated patients with stable cardiovascular disease compared to usual care: a randomised controlled trial
Wilhelmina IJzelenberg,Irene M Hellemans,Maurits W van Tulder,Martijn W Heymans,Jan A Rauwerda,Albert C van Rossum,Jaap C Seidell
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 2012; 12(1): 71
[Pubmed]
23 Fetal Pulmonary Response After Fetoscopic Tracheal Occlusion for Severe Isolated Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia
Rodrigo Ruano,Marcos Marques da Silva,Juliana Alvares Duarte Bonini Campos,Ramesha Papanna,Kenneth Moise,Uenis Tannuri,Marcelo Zugaib
Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2012; 119(1): 93
[Pubmed]
24 Open Versus Laparoscopic Pyloromyotomy for Hypertrophic Pyloric Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Major Complications
M. W. N. Oomen,L. T. Hoekstra,R. Bakx,D. T. Ubbink,H. A. Heij
Surgical Endoscopy. 2012; 26(8): 2104
[Pubmed]
25 Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial of an SSRI vs Bupropion: Effects on Suicidal Behavior, Ideation, and Mood in Major Depression
Michael F Grunebaum,Steven P Ellis,Naihua Duan,Ainsley K Burke,Maria A Oquendo,J John Mann
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012; 37(3): 697
[Pubmed]
26 Nonuse and Dropout Attrition for a Web-Based Mental Health Intervention Delivered in a Post-Disaster Context
Matthew Price,Daniel F. Gros,Jenna L. McCauley,Kirstin Stauffacher Gros,Kenneth J. Ruggiero
Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes. 2012; 75(3): 267
[Pubmed]
27 Prediction of radiation pneumonitis in lung cancer patients: a systematic review
Xiao-Jing Zhang,Jian-Guo Sun,Jie Sun,Hua Ming,Xin-Xin Wang,Lei Wu,Zheng-Tang Chen
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 2012; 138(12): 2103
[Pubmed]
28 Omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids supplementation on inflammatory biomakers: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials
Oscar D. Rangel-Huerta,Concepcion M. Aguilera,Maria D. Mesa,Angel Gil
British Journal of Nutrition. 2012; 107(S2): S159
[Pubmed]
29 Intrahospital Weight and Aerobic Training in Children with Cystic Fibrosis
ELENA SANTANA SOSA,IRIS F. GROENEVELD,LAURA GONZALEZ-SAIZ,LUIS M. LÓPEZ-MOJARES,JOSÉ R. VILLA-ASENSI,MARÍA I. BARRIO GONZALEZ,STEVEN J. FLECK,MARGARITA PÉREZ,ALEJANDRO LUCIA
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2012; 44(1): 2
[Pubmed]
30 The Beneficial Effect of Transversus Abdominis Plane Block After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Day-Case Surgery
Pernille Lykke Petersen,Pia Stjernholm,Viggo B. Kristiansen,Henrik Torup,Egon G. Hansen,Anja U. Mitchell,Ann Moeller,Jacob Rosenberg,Joergen B. Dahl,Ole Mathiesen
Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2012; : 1
[Pubmed]
31 Systematic review of quality of reporting, outcome measurements and methods to study efficacy of preventive and therapeutic approaches to peri-implant diseases
Filippo Graziani,Elena Figuero,David Herrera
Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2012; 39: 224
[Pubmed]
32 The implementation of a community-based aerobic walking program for mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis (OA): a knowledge translation (KT) randomized controlled trial (RCT): Part I: The Uptake of the Ottawa Panel clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)
Lucie Brosseau,George A Wells,Glen P Kenny,Robert Reid,Andreas Maetzel,Peter Tugwell,Maria Huijbregts,Carolyn McCullough,Gino De Angelis,Lily Chen
BMC Public Health. 2012; 12(1): 871
[Pubmed]
33 Using Systematic Reviews to Critically Appraise the Scientific Information for the Bovine Veterinarian
Jean-Michel Vandeweerd,Peter Clegg,V. Hougardy,Sébastien Buczinski
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 2012; 28(1): 13
[Pubmed]
34 Randomized clinical trial of dexamethasone versus placebo in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair
M. A. Tolver,P. Strandfelt,E. B. Bryld,J. Rosenberg,T. Bisgaard
British Journal of Surgery. 2012; 99(10): 1374
[Pubmed]
35 A Systematic Review of Early Postpartum Medroxyprogesterone Receipt and Early Breastfeeding Cessation: Evaluating the Methodological Rigor of the Evidence
Elizabeth A. Brownell,I. Diana Fernandez,Cynthia R. Howard,Susan G. Fisher,Sharon R. Ternullo,Ryan J.J. Buckley,Ann M. Dozier
Breastfeeding Medicine. 2012; 7(1): 10
[Pubmed]
36 Quality of Clinical Trials in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours
Thomas Walter,Monika K. Krzyzanowska
Neuroendocrinology. 2012; 96(3): 238
[Pubmed]
37 Classification of episiotomy: towards a standardisation of terminology
V Kalis,K Laine,JW de Leeuw,KM Ismail,DG Tincello
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2012; 119(5): 522
[Pubmed]
38 The efficacy of counseling and progressive resistance home-exercises on adherence, health-related quality of life and function after discharge from a geriatric day-hospital
Therese Brovold,Dawn A. Skelton,Astrid Bergland
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2012; 55(2): 453
[Pubmed]
39 Brain Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic and Non-Cancerous Pain
Ela B. Plow,Alvaro Pascual-Leone,Andre Machado
The Journal of Pain. 2012; 13(5): 411
[Pubmed]
40 Effect of selenium supplementation on CD4 T-cell recovery, viral suppression, morbidity and quality of life of HIV-infected patients in Rwanda: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Julius Kamwesiga,Vincent Mutabazi,Josephine Kayumba,Jean-Claude K Tayari,Richard Smyth,Heather Fay,Alice Umurerwa,Marcel Baziruwiha,Christian Ntizimira,Antoinette Murebwayire,Jean Haguma,Julienne Nyiransabimana,Donatille Habarurema,Veneranda Mukarukundo,Jean Nzabandora,Pascal Nzamwita,Ernestine Mukazayire,Edward J Mills,Dugald Seely,Douglas J McCready,Don Warren
Trials. 2011; 12(1): 192
[Pubmed]
41 Is the presence of Modic changes associated with the outcomes of different treatments? A systematic critical review
Rikke K Jensen,Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2011; 12(1): 183
[Pubmed]
42 A method to evaluate scientific evidence in clinical preventive medicine
Joongyub Lee,Byung-Joo Park
Journal of the Korean Medical Association. 2011; 54(10): 1006
[Pubmed]
43 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology task force report on ‘dose-response relationship in allergen-specific immunotherapy’
M. A. Calderón,D. Larenas,J. Kleine-Tebbe,L. Jacobsen,G. Passalacqua,P. A. Eng,E. M. Varga,E. Valovirta,C. Moreno,H. J. Malling,E. Alvarez-Cuesta,S. Durham,P. Demoly
Allergy. 2011; 66(10): 1345
[Pubmed]
44 Establishing a knowledge trail from molecular experiments to clinical trials
May Yee Yong,Alejandra González-Beltrán,Richard Begent
New Biotechnology. 2011; 28(5): 464
[Pubmed]
45 Intranasal Application of Xenon Reduces Opioid Requirement and Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery
Thorsten Frederik Holsträter,Michael Georgieff,Karl Josef Föhr,Werner Klingler,Miriam Elisabeth Uhl,Tobias Walker,Sarah Köster,Georg Grön,Oliver Adolph
Anesthesiology. 2011; 115(2): 398
[Pubmed]
46 Efectos de la toxina botulínica tipo A y electroestimulación en la espasticidad flexora distal de la extremidad superior en el ictus. Ensayo clínico aleatorizado
E. Duarte,E. Marco,C. Cervantes,D. Díaz,S.C. Chiarella,F. Escalada
Rehabilitación. 2011; 45(3): 194
[Pubmed]
47 Effectiveness of a family-centered method for the early identification of social-emotional and behavioral problems in children: a quasi experimental study
Margriet Hielkema,Andrea F de Winter,Gea de Meer,Sijmen A Reijneveld
BMC Public Health. 2011; 11(1): 636
[Pubmed]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Introduction
    Intent of CONSOR...
    Background to CO...
    Development of C...
    Changes in CONSO...
    Implications and...
    Acknowledgments
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2842    
    Printed126    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded796    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 47    

Recommend this journal