Relevance of CONSORT reporting criteria for research on eHealth interventions
Open accessAbstract
Objective In 1996, 2001, and 2010, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group released criteria for reporting critical information about randomized clinical trials [1,2]. These criteria were intended to improve the quality and completeness of reporting of RCTs in health care research. This paper discusses the relevance of the CONSORT recommendations for the reporting and design of eHealth research.Methods We reviewed the CONSORT recommendations and discussed their particular relevance to eHealth (electronic information, support and/or communication resources designed to promote health) research. This review focuses on such issues as recruitment and screening of participants, description of treatment elements, and reporting of outcome data and adverse events.Results eHealth research presents special challenges regarding the comprehensive and effective reporting of research information. However, the strategic application of CONSORT recommendations holds great promise for improving the quality and informativeness of eHealth research.Conclusion Investigators need to consider CONSORT recommendations at all stages of the research enterprise, including planning, execution and reporting in order to increase the informativeness of their research efforts.Practice implications The recommendations contained in this paper have the potential to enhance the public health and scientific value of eHealth research.
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
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 study could not be blinded for participants or GPs and health providers because the intervention required overt participation.
“The study could not be blinded for the participants or GPs and health providers because of the nature of the intervention, which required overt participation [42].”
RCTs of web-based interventions pose specific issues and challenges, particularly related to reporting sufficient details of the intervention to allow replication and theory-building.
“RCTs of web-based interventions pose very specific issues and challenges, in particular related to reporting sufficient details of the intervention to allow replication and theory-building.”
From CONSORT-EHEALTH: Improving and Standardizing Evaluation Reports of Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions (2011) · cites this paper as [13]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 59 · Cited by 88
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [5]Griesam N Meyer C Haug S Diversity and accessibility of smoking cessation aids in the internet Gesundheitswesen 2008 70 372 6 18661461
- Authors
- Baker, T. B., Gustafson, D. H., Shaw, B., Hawkins, R., Pingree, S., Roberts, L., & Strecher, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Baker, Timothy B.
- Venue
- Patient Education and Counseling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-12
- Volume
- 81
- Pages
- S77-S86
- ISSN
- 0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2993846
- OpenAlex
- W2034556909
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 5.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Pfizer
- Wellcome Trust
- National Cancer Institute (P50CA095817)
- U.S. National Library of Medicine
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Keywords
- CONSORT, reporting quality, digital health interventions, randomized controlled trials, outcome reporting, adverse events, research design
- MeSH terms
- Electronic Data Processing, Health Services Research, Humans, Publishing, Quality Control, Research Design, 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
