Cited by 24Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsClinical practice guidelines implementation

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extensions covered most types of randomized controlled trials, but the potential workload for authors was high

Open access
Ghosn, Lina, Boutron, Isabelle, Ravaud, Philippe·2019·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objectives Our aim was to determine the coverage of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT) Statement and its extensions and to evaluate the potential workload for authors to adhere to the guidelines.Study design and setting We identified CONSORT extensions from the CONSORT Web site. We randomly selected a sample of 1,000 RCTs indexed in PubMed in 2016 and recorded whether they were covered by CONSORT extensions for specific study designs or interventions. We evaluated the potential workload for authors by counting the number of documents and pages they have to consult to have a full understanding of the guidelines.Results We identified 14 extensions. Only one extension was updated concurrently with the main CONSORT in 2010, three were updated after 2-7 years, and three are still based on CONSORT 2001. Overall, 81% of RCTs are covered by relevant CONSORT guidelines; missing extensions for specific study designs were under development at the time of the search (Nov 2018). However, 6 of 10 extensions covered <2% of the trials. A median [Q1-Q3] of 4 [4-5] documents and 67 [57-78] pages should be consulted.Conclusion Most RCTs indexed in PubMed are covered by the CONSORT Statement and extensions, but the potential workload for authors could be high.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.030

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ghosn, L., Boutron, I., & Ravaud, P.
Affiliations
Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Boutron, Isabelle
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
113
Pages
168-175
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2947362869
Cited by
24
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Groupe Hospitalier Paris Centre - Assistance Publique Hopitaux de Paris (MERRI-AAP- 2017-010)
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 statement, CONSORT extension, reporting guidelines, randomized controlled trials, guideline adherence, trial reporting quality
MeSH terms
Humans, Publishing, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Workload, Guideline Adherence, Research Report

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