The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT): Guidelines for Reporting Randomized Trials
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rules for reporting the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in published manuscripts have been elusive, and many nurse scientists have learned to write research reports by trial and error. APPROACH: New comprehensive guidelines for reporting RCTs are now available to authors, editors, and readers, a development that is likely to improve the quality of published reports. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines consist of two parts, a 22-item checklist and a flowchart template, that track the flow of all participants through the RCT. Currently, some journals, including Nursing Research, have adopted CONSORT and suggest or require its use in submitted manuscripts, but other journals do not. RESULTS: The CONSORT has potential to be useful beyond writing manuscripts. Because CONSORT is a comprehensive guide to essential elements of an RCT report, it also provides a useful guide for designing RCTs and writing funding proposals that include all the essential elements of a trial. It also could be a useful synopsis of important concepts when teaching research design to doctoral students. DISCUSSION: Reports of RCTs that use CONSORT are easier to read, interpret, and evaluate for relevancy to clinical practice. In addition, excellent reports of research increase the visibility of nursing research beyond our discipline. The CONSORT adds value to nursing research because researchers and readers alike will benefit if it is used more often.
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.
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
Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & the TREND Group (2004) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.361 · Cited by 2,817
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association · doi:10.7547/87507315-91-8-437 · Cited by 193
Cited by
Laviada‐Molina, H., Molina‐Segui, F., Pérez‐Gaxiola, G., Cuello‐García, C., Arjona‐Villicaña, R., Espinosa‐Marrón, A., & Martinez‐Portilla, R. J. (2020) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.13020 · Cited by 115
Digital training for building resilience: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression
Ang, W. H. D., Chew, H. S. J., Dong, J., Yi, H., Mahendren, R., & Lau, Y. (2022) · Stress and Health · doi:10.1002/smi.3154 · Cited by 83
“Future studies should conform to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines (Bennett, 2005) by registering their trials and when faced with significant attrition, should consider using ITT approaches or its equivalent to ensure that the reported treatment effects are…”
MethodBench, S., Day, T., Heelas, K., Hopkins, P., White, C., & Griffiths, P. (2015) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006852 · Cited by 49
Mahboobi, S., Ghasvarian, M., Ghaem, H., Alipour, H., Alipour, S., & Eftekhari, M. H. (2022) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.1018357 · Cited by 31
Quantifying representativeness in randomized clinical trials using machine learning fairness metrics
Qi, M., Cahan, O., Foreman, M. A., Gruen, D. M., Das, A. K., & Bennett, K. P. (2021) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab077 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Bennett, J. A.
- Venue
- Nursing Research
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 128???132
- ISSN
- 0029-6562 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2048176475
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT): Guidelines for Reporting Randomized Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00006199-200503000-00007
- The paper
- Bennett, J. A. (2005). The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT): Guidelines for Reporting Randomized Trials. Nursing Research. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200503000-00007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.