The DOI matches its Crossref record; 303 of the 303 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Open accessAbstract
Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [33].”
From Systematic review of mind‐body interventions to treat myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The study design was guided by the adapted CONSORT checklist for pilot trials [37, 38].”
From It is time to address fear of cancer recurrence in family caregivers: protocol for the feasibility and acceptability of a randomized pilot study of the online version of the Family Caregiver–Fear Of Recurrence Therapy (FC-FORT) (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As reported in the main CONSORT statement, a systematic review has shown that research funded by the pharmaceutical industry is more likely to report findings in its favour, compared with reports of research funded by independent funding bodies.2 61”
From CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. (2016) · cites this paper as [61]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Restricted randomisation is particularly useful in small trials evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention, to ensure balance in certain characteristics between intervention and control groups”
From CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. (2016) · cites this paper as [61]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A quality assessment of each report was carried out to determine if the study followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria [42].”
From Patient Engagement with Conversational Agents in Health Applications 2016–2022: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For this protocol, we will follow the CONSORT statement (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, http://www.consort-statement.org) (25, 26) and the SPIRIT guidelines (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (27, 28).”
From Spanish Adaptation of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Participants With Cancer: Study Protocol of a Randomized Control Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [26]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This trial was registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT04074681) and will be carried out taking into account the CONSORT 2010 (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials; www.consort-statement.org) (Moher et al., 2010) and the CONSORT-EHEALTH guidelines (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile Health Applications and Online TeleHealth) (Eysenbach and CONSORT”
From Efficacy of an internet-based psychological intervention for problem gambling and gambling disorder: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as Moher et al., 2010
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The results of the study will be reported according to the guidelines of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement [45].”
From HELP@APP: Development and evaluation of a self-help app for traumatized Syrian refugees in Germany- A study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (2019) · cites this paper as [45]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The RCT was conducted in accordance with the CONSORT 2010 Statement [51] and the CONSORT-EHEALTH guidelines [52,53] to study the efficacy of two experimental conditions: 1) In Vivo Exposure and 2) Augmented Reality Exposure (see S1 CONSORT Checklist).”
From In Vivo versus augmented reality exposure in the treatment of small animal phobia: A randomized controlled trial (2016) · cites this paper as [52]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Two reviewers (Zhen Qu and Jiangyi Ju) independently assessed the risk of bias for each included study. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2.0) tool (19).”
From Effectiveness of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic sciatica from herniated disks: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“since findings from case studies sometimes fail to be replicated in controlled trials (CONSORT; Moher et al., 2010).”
From THE EFFICACY OF A COMPASSION, ACCEPTANCE AND MINDFULNESS-BASED PILOT INTERVENTION FOR ADOLESCENTS’ TEST ANXIETY: A CASE STUDY USING THE ACADEMIC PROGRAM (2023) · cites this paper as Moher et al., 2010
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Regarding reporting of adverse events, despite the recommendation of reporting adverse events in clinical trials by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Group [41], only 1 study [20] reported adverse events.”
From A systematic review of artificial intelligence chatbots for promoting physical activity, healthy diet, and weight loss (2021) · cites this paper as [41]
In the citing paper
“Restricted randomisation is particularly useful in small trials evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention, to ensure balance in certain characteristics between intervention and control groups (see main CONSORT statement) [2, 61].”
From CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials (2016) · cites this paper as [61]
In the citing paper
“As reported in the main CONSORT statement, a systematic review has shown that research funded by the pharmaceutical industry is more likely to report findings in its favour, compared with reports of research funded by independent funding bodies [2, 61]”
From CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials (2016) · cites this paper as [61]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Items 201–303 of 303
Alendronate increases lumbar spine bone mineral density in patients with Crohn's disease
Haderslev, K. V., Tjellesen, L., Sørensen, H. A., & Staun, M. (2000) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/gast.2000.16518 · Cited by 150
Radford, J. A., Landorf, K. B., Buchbinder, R., & Cook, C. (2006) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-64 · Cited by 141
Gravel, J., Opatrny, L., & Shapiro, S. (2007) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1177/1740774507081223 · Cited by 138
Sabatine, M. S., Antman, E. M., Widimský, P., Ebrahim, I. O., Kiss, R. G., Saaiman, A., Polášek, R., Contant, C. F., McCabe, C. H., & Braunwald, E. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61454-9 · Cited by 138
Does analysis using "last observation carried forward" introduce bias in dementia research?
Molnar, F., Hutton, B., & Fergusson, D. A. (2008) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.080820 · Cited by 137
How well are randomized controlled trials reported in the dermatology literature?
Adetugbo, K., & Williams, H. C. (2000) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archderm.136.3.381 · Cited by 135
Horton, R. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6985.985 · Cited by 132
Heit, J. A., Elliott, C. G., Trowbridge, A. A., Morrey, B. F., Gent, M., Hirsh, J., & for the Ardeparin Arthroplasty Study Group* (2000) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-132-11-200006060-00002 · Cited by 132
Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta‐analysis
Williamson, P. R., & Gamble, C. (2005) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2025 · Cited by 132
Gregson, S., Adamson, S., Papaya, S., Mundondo, J., Nyamukapa, C. A., Mason, P. R., Garnett, G. P., Chandiwana, S. K., Foster, G., & Anderson, R. M. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040102 · Cited by 129
Stopping rules and estimation problems in clinical trials
Hughes, M. D., & Pocock, S. (1988) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780071204 · Cited by 128
Who benefits from medical interventions?
Smith, G. D., & Egger, M. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6921.72 · Cited by 128
Self-citationCross-over Trials in Clinical Research
Rigby, A. S. (2003) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.1111/1467-9884.00369_22 · Cited by 126
The agonising negative trend in monitoring of clinical trials
DeMets, D. L., Pocock, S. J., & Julian, D. G. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)03464-9 · Cited by 126
Ndekha, M. J., van Oosterhout, J. J. G., Zijlstra, E. E., MANARY, M. J., Saloojee, H., & MANARY, M. J. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b1867 · Cited by 123
Blinding during data analysis and writing of manuscripts
Gøtzsche, P. C. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00263-4 · Cited by 123
Self-citationIn the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter?
Guyatt, G. H., Mills, E. J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004 · Cited by 119
Self-citationSelective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by The Lancet
Al-Marzouki, S., Roberts, I., Evans, S., & Marshall, T. (2008) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61060-0 · Cited by 119
Clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction: Should we adjust for baseline characteristics?
Steyerberg, E. W., Bossuyt, P. M., & Lee, K. L. (2000) · American Heart Journal · doi:10.1016/s0002-8703(00)90001-2 · Cited by 119
A randomised controlled trial and meta‐analysis of active management of labour
Sadler, L. C., Davison, T., & McCowan, L. M. E. (2000) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11091.x · Cited by 116
Randomized clinical trials in Hepatology: Predictors of quality
Gluud, L. L., Nikolova, D., & Gluud, C. N. (1999) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.510300510 · Cited by 115
Smith, S. A., Shah, N. D., Bryant, S. C., Christianson, T. J. H., Bjornsen, S. S., Giesler, P. D., Krause, K. H., Erwin, P. J., & Montori, V. M. (2008) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.4065/83.7.747 · Cited by 113
Self-citationTrials stopped early: too good to be true?
Pocock, S., & White, I. R. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)00379-1 · Cited by 113
Interim analyses in clinical trials: Classical vs. bayesian approaches
Berry, D. A. (1985) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780040412 · Cited by 112
Adverse Event Reporting in Publications Compared With Sponsor Database for Cancer Clinical Trials
Scharf, O., & Colevas, A. D. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.05.3959 · Cited by 111
GRANT, A. M., Wileman, S. M., Ramsay, C. R., et al. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a2664 · Cited by 110
Randomised controlled trial of magnetic-resonance pelvimetry in breech presentation at term
van Loon, A. J., Mantingh, A., Serlier, E. K., et al. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)05431-7 · Cited by 105
Preventing IUCD‐related pelvic infection: the efficacy of prophylactic doxycycline at insertion
Sinei, S. K., Schulz, K. F., Lamptey, P. R., et al. (1990) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb01828.x · Cited by 103
Self-citationStopping Medical Research to Save Money
Psaty, B. M., & Rennie, D. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.16.2128 · Cited by 102
Statistics notes: Interaction 3: How to examine heterogeneity: Table 1
Matthews, J. N. S., & Altman, D. G. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7061.862 · Cited by 98
Self-citationBlumer, J. L., Findling, R. L., Shih, W. J., Soubrane, C., & Reed, M. D. (2009) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2945 · Cited by 98
Gandhi, M., Ameli, N., Bacchetti, P., Sharp, G. B., French, A. L., Young, M., Gange, S. J., Anastos, K., Holman, S., Levine, A. M., et al. (2005) · AIDS · doi:10.1097/01.aids.0000189866.67182.f7 · Cited by 94
Bornhöft, G., Maxion‐Bergemann, S., Wolf, U., Kienle, G. S., Michalsen, A., Vollmar, H. C., Gilbertson, S. K., & Matthiessen, P. F. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-56 · Cited by 92
The Lancet Handbook of Essential Concepts in Clinical Research
Nwose, E. U. (2007) · Australian journal of medical science · Cited by 92
Angelis, C. D. D., Drazen, J. M., Frizelle, F., Haug, C. J., Hoey, J., Horton, R. C., Kotzin, S., Laine, C. M., Marušić, A., Overbeke, A. J. P. M., et al. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66588-9 · Cited by 91
Multicenter Comparison of the Contraceptive Ring and Patch
Creinin, M. D., Meyn, L. A., Borgatta, L., Barnhart, K. T., Jensen, J. T., Burke, A. E., Westhoff, C. L., Gilliam, M. L., Dutton, C., & Ballagh, S. A. (2008) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000298338.58511.d1 · Cited by 90
Intravenous fluid restriction after major abdominal surgery: a randomized blinded clinical trial
Vermeulen, H., Hofland, J., Legemate, D. A., et al. (2009) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-10-50 · Cited by 90
Quality of Full and Final Publications Reporting Acute Stroke Trials
Bath-Hextall, F. J., Owen, V. E., & Bath, P. M. (1998) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.29.10.2203 · Cited by 88
Turning a blind eye:Why we don't test for blindness at the end of our trials
Sackett, D. L. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7448.1136-a · Cited by 88
Papp, K. A., Bissonnette, R., Rosoph, L. A., et al. (2008) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60593-0 · Cited by 88
Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: Cross sectional study.
Gøtzsche, P. C. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38895.410451.79 · Cited by 85
Self-citationMethodologic standards in surgical trials
Hall, J. C., Mills, B., Nguyen, N., & Hall, J. L. (1996) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0039-6060(96)80149-8 · Cited by 85
Generalizability of the Results of Randomized Trials
Weiss, N. S. (2008) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2007.30 · Cited by 84
Schulz, K. F. (1998) · Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/00003081-199806000-00005 · Cited by 82
Self-citationReporting Randomized Controlled Trials: An Experiment and a Call for Responses From Readers
Rennie, D. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520370096044 · Cited by 81
Call for Comments on a Proposal To Improve Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature
Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. (1994) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-121-11-199412010-00015 · Cited by 78
Nicolucci, A. (1989) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.262.15.2101 · Cited by 78
Somatostatin v placebo in bleeding oesophageal varices: randomised trial and meta-analysis
Gotzsche, P. C., Gjørup, I. E., Bonnén, H., Brahe, N. E. B., Becker, U., & Burcharth, F. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6993.1495 · Cited by 77
A Study in Contrasts: Eligibility Criteria in a Twenty-Year Sample of NSABP and POG Clinical Trials
Fuks, A., Weijer, C., Freedman, B., Shapiro, S. H., Skrutkowska, M., & Riaz, A. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00240-0 · Cited by 77
Statistical Aspects of Clinical Trial Design
Pocock, S. (1982) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.2307/2988097 · Cited by 77
Intention to treat analysis is related to methodological quality
Ruiz‐Canela, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7240.1007 · Cited by 76
(2002) · PubMed · Cited by 74
Herman, A., Botser, I. B., Tenenbaum, S. A., & Chechick, A. (2009) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.h.01481 · Cited by 74
Logistic Regression Models in Obstetrics and Gynecology Literature
Khan, K. S., CHIEN, P. F. W., & DWARAKANATH, L. S. (1999) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00537-7 · Cited by 73
Obtaining information accurately and quickly: are structured abstracts more efficient?
Hartley, J., Sydes, M., & Blurton, A. (1996) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/016555159602200503 · Cited by 73
How To Report Statistics In Medicine: Annotated Guidelines for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers
Bradley, J. M. K. (1998) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.1093/ajhp/55.1.94 · Cited by 73
News from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Davidoff, F. F. (2000) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-133-3-200008010-00017 · Cited by 68
Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals
Wager, E., & Middleton, P. (2008) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000002.pub3 · Cited by 68
From Optimism to Disillusion about Commitment to Transparency in the Medico-Industrial Complex
Chalmers, I. (2006) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.7.337 · Cited by 66
Reporting on Statistical Methods To Adjust for Confounding: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Müllner, M., Matthews, H., & Altman, D. G. (2002) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-136-2-200201150-00009 · Cited by 66
Self-citationBeyond CONSORT: Need for Improved Reporting Standards for Clinical Trials
Meinert, C. L. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.18.1487 · Cited by 65
Uterine Exteriorization Compared With In Situ Repair at Cesarean Delivery
Coutinho, I., Amorim, M. M. R., Katz, L., et al. (2008) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e31816521e2 · Cited by 64
Narahari, S. R. B., Ryan, T. J., Aggithaya, M. G., Bose, K. S., & Prasanna, K. S. (2008) · The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · doi:10.1089/acm.2007.0818 · Cited by 62
The safety of over-the-counter niacin. A randomized placebo-controlled trial [ISRCTN18054903]
Mills, E. J., Prousky, J. E., Raskin, G., Gagnier, J. J., Rachlis, B., Montori, V. M., & Juurlink, D. N. (2003) · BMC Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1186/1472-6904-3-4 · Cited by 61
Self-citationMissing data and the trouble with LOCF
Streiner, D. L. (2008) · Evidence-Based Mental Health · doi:10.1136/ebmh.11.1.3-a · Cited by 59
Masked Monitoring in Clinical Trials — Blind Stupidity?
Meinert, C. L. (1998) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199805073381911 · Cited by 59
Clarke, M., Hopewell, S., & Chalmers, L. (2007) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.4.187 · Cited by 59
Self-citationChanges to Manuscripts During the Editorial Process
Purcell, G. P., Donovan, S. L., & Davidoff, F. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.227 · Cited by 58
Lai, T., Wong, V. W., Lam, R., Cheng, A. C., Lam, D., & Leung, G. (2007) · Ophthalmic Epidemiology · doi:10.1080/09286580701344399 · Cited by 53
Structured abstracts in MEDLINE, 1989-1991.
Harbourt, A. M., Knecht, L. S., & Humphreys, B. L. (1995) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 51
Reporting the study populations of clinical trials
Shapiro, S. H., Weijer, C., & Freedman, B. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00227-4 · Cited by 51
Statistical Considerations in the Intent-to-Treat Principle
Lachin, J. M. (2000) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(00)00092-1 · Cited by 51
Sydes, M. R., Altman, D. G., Babikera, A. B., Parmar, M. K., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & DAMOCLES group (2004) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1191/1740774504cn003oa · Cited by 49
Self-citationAccuracy of Abstracts for Original Research Articles in Pharmacy Journals
Ward, L. G., Kendrach, M. G., & Price, S. O. (2004) · Annals of Pharmacotherapy · doi:10.1345/aph.1d416 · Cited by 47
A clinical trials register for Europe
Tonks, A. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7376.1314 · Cited by 46
A qualitative assessment of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology
Ah-See, K. W., & Molony, N. (1998) · The Journal of Laryngology & Otology · doi:10.1017/s0022215100140770 · Cited by 45
Logistic regression models used in medical research are poorly presented
Bender, R., & Grouven, U. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7057.628 · Cited by 44
A Practical Comparison of Group-Sequential and Adaptive Designs
Kelly, P. J., Sooriyarachchi, M. R., Stallard, N., & Todd, S. (2005) · Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics · doi:10.1081/bip-200062859 · Cited by 44
Adherence to Published Standards of Reporting
Junker, C. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.247 · Cited by 43
Laypersons' understanding of relative risk reductions: Randomised cross-sectional study
Sorensen, L., Gyrd‐Hansen, D., Kristiansen, I. S., et al. (2008) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-8-31 · Cited by 40
Misuse of Baseline Comparison Tests and Subgroup Analyses in Surgical Trials
Bhandari, M., Devereaux, P. J., Li, P., Mah, D. Y., Lim, K. H., Schünemann, H. J., & Tornetta, P. (2006) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000218736.23506.fe · Cited by 38
Self-citationBase Logic: Tests of Baseline Balance in Randomized Clinical Trials
Senn, S. J. (1995) · Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs · doi:10.3109/10601339509019426 · Cited by 38
The Accuracy of Abstracts in Psychology Journals
Harris, A. H. S., Standard, S., Bruning, J., Casey-Cannon, S., Goldberg, J. H., Oliver, L., Ito, K., & Marshall, J. M. (2002) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223980209604145 · Cited by 34
The impact of open access upon public health
Barbour, V. M. (2006) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.06.032409 · Cited by 32
PhRMA Working Group on Adaptive Designs: Introduction to the Full White Paper
Gallo, P. P., & Krams, M. (2006) · Drug Information Journal · doi:10.1177/216847900604000407 · Cited by 32
Reproducibility of home spirometry in children with newly diagnosed asthma
Pelkonen, A. S., Nikander, K., & Turpeinen, M. T. (2000) · Pediatric Pulmonology · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0496(200001)29:1 · Cited by 31
Interim analyses, stopping rules and data monitoring in clinical trials in europe
Buyse, M. E. (1993) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780120517 · Cited by 30
Technologies for Automating Randomized Treatment Assignment in Clinical Trials
Haag, U. (1998) · Drug Information Journal · doi:10.1177/009286159803200102 · Cited by 29
An open prospective randomised trial to reduce the pain of blood glucose testing: ear versus thumb
Carley, S. D., Libetta, C., Flavin, B. M., et al. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7252.20 · Cited by 26
Randomized Trials Stopped Early for Benefit: A Systematic Review
Montori, V. M., Devereaux, P. J., Adhikari, N. K. J., Burns, K. E. A., Eggert, C. H., Briel, M., Lacchetti, C., Leung, T. W., Darling, E., Bryant, D. M., et al. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.17.2203 · Cited by 26
Self-citationBaseline Comparability in Clinical Trials: Prevention of “Poststudy Anxiety”
Enas, G. G., Enas, N. H., Spradlin, C. T., Wilson, M. G., & Wiltse, C. G. (1990) · Drug Information Journal · doi:10.1177/009286159002400312 · Cited by 24
MISUSE OF STATISTICAL METHODS IN THE AUSTRALASIAN SURGICAL LITERATURE
Hall, J. C., Hill, D. V., & Watts, J. M. (1982) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.1982.tb06050.x · Cited by 22
FDA perspective on trials with interim efficacy evaluations
Temple, R. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2631 · Cited by 18
Promoting good research practice
Murray, G. D. (2000) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1191/096228000670253839 · Cited by 12
More on Zidovudine in Asymptomatic HIV Infection
Altman, D. G., Cuzick, J. M., & Peto, J. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199406163302415 · Cited by 11
Self-citationTreatment effects monitoring committees and early stopping in large clinical trials
Kiri, A., Tonascia, S., & Meinert, C. L. (2004) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1191/1740774504cn014oa · Cited by 11
Piaggio, G. G., Elbourne, D. R., Schulz, K. F., Villar, J., Pinol, A., & Gülmezoglu, A. M. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-19 · Cited by 11
Self-citationIndependence and Statistical Inference in Clinical Trial Designs: A Tutorial Review
Bolton, S. (1998) · The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1002/j.1552-4604.1998.tb04444.x · Cited by 10
Masking or blinding? An unscientific survey of mostly medical journal editors on the great debate.
Lang, T. (2000) · PubMed · Cited by 8
Quoting intermediate analyses can only mislead
Bland, J. M. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7098.1907a · Cited by 5
Completeness of Safety Reporting in Randomized Trials: An Evaluation of 7 Medical Areas
Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Lau, J. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.4.437 · Cited by 3
Hahn, S., Williamson, P. R., Hutton, J. L., Garner, P., & Flynn, E. V. (2000) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Schachter HM, Pham B, King J, Langford S, Moher D. The efficacy and safety of methylphenidate in attention deficit disorder: A systematic review and meta-analyis. Prepared for the Therapeutics Inititiative, Vancouver, B.C., and the British Columbia Ministry for Children and Families, 2000.
- Altman, 2009, Missing outcomes in randomised trials: addressing the dilemma, Open Med, 3, e21
- Annals of Internal Medicine. Information for authors. Available at www.annals.org (accessed 15 Jan 2008).
- Chan, 2008, The SPIRIT initiative: defining standard protocol items for randomised trials. Oral presentation at the 16th Cochrane Colloquium: Evidence in the era of globalisation; 2008 Oct 3-7; Freiburg, Germany [[abstract]], Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 102, 27
Cited by
Sorted by citations
CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials.
Eldridge, S. M., Chan, C. L., Campbell, M. J., Bond, C. M., Hopewell, S., Thabane, L., & Lancaster, G. A. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i5239 · Cited by 3,404
Self-citationConsort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661 · Cited by 3,510
Self-citationCONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials
on behalf of the PAFS consensus group, Eldridge, S. M., Chan, C. L., Campbell, M. J., Bond, C. M., Hopewell, S., Thabane, L., & Lancaster, G. A. (2016) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-016-0105-8 · Cited by 2,843
Self-citationMoons, K. G. M., de Groot, J. A. H., Bouwmeester, W., Vergouwe, Y., Mallett, S., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., & Collins, G. S. (2014) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001744 · Cited by 2,018
Self-citationDonnelly, J. E., Hillman, C. H., Castelli, D., Etnier, J. L., Lee, S., Tomporowski, P., Lambourne, K., & Szabo-Reed, A. N. (2016) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000000901 · Cited by 1,864
Metadata
- Authors
- Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gøtzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G.
- Affiliations
- Ottawa Hospital (CA)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Family Health International 360 (US)
- Rigshospitalet (DK)
- McMaster University (CA)
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
- University of Bern (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Moher, David
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e1-e37
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4235092737
- Cited by
- 1,858
- References
- 303
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 132 · 2023: 107 · 2022: 146 · 2021: 153 · 2020: 179 · 2019: 146 · 2018: 121 · 2017: 122 · 2016: 132 · 2015: 140 · 2014: 120 · 2013: 83 · 2012: 81
- FWCI
- 74.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion)
- LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Pennsylvania
- Johns Hopkins University
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
- McMaster University
- National Institute for Health and Care Research
- University of Oxford
- Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
- University of California, Irvine
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- CONSORT 2010, reporting quality, randomized controlled trials, reporting bias, selective outcome reporting, flowcharts, trial reporting checklist, critical appraisal
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Publishing, Quality Control, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
