The DOI matches its Crossref record; 175 of the 175 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials
Open accessAbstract
To comprehend the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis and interpretation. That goal can only be achieved through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this paper incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement.The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22-items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biasedestimates of treatment effect or the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, for each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis.In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.
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 says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Six criterion were adapted from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement 42 and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement to assess risk of bias of individual studies.43”
From Domain-Specific Physical Activity and Mental Health: A Meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as [43]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The study follows the CONSORT statement (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) [54, 55], CONSORT-EHEALTH [56] and SPIRIT guidelines (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) [57, 58].”
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“In accordance with CONSORT guidelines [54], randomisation will occur after participants have completed their baseline measures.”
From Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of internet-based cognitive-behavioural therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder (2014) · cites this paper as [54]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“However, mindfulness and hypnosis appear to help alleviate pain via corticothalamic modulation of ascending nociceptive input.[90][91][92][93]”
From Mind-Body Therapies for Opioid-Treated Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [92]
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
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,586
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Hulley, S. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.7.605 · Cited by 6,216
Basic principles of ROC analysis
Metz, C. E. (1978) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0001-2998(78)80014-2 · Cited by 6,122
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Self-citationMoher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Self-citationMoher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Huston P, Hoey J: CMAJ endorses the CONSORT statement. CMAJ. 1996, 155: 1277-1279.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020
“The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement was developed in 1996 and revised 5 years later [12].”
Self-citationvon Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010 · Cited by 17,796
Self-citationCONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · Cited by 13,371
Self-citationPharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults
Kleinstäuber, M., Witthöft, M., Steffanowski, A., van Marwijk, H., Hiller, W., & Lambert, M. J. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010628.pub2 · Cited by 11,369
Metadata
- Authors
- Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Moher, David
- Schulz, Kenneth F
- Altman, Douglas G
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2001-04-20
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-2
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC32201
- OpenAlex
- W1501619595
- Cited by
- 2,755
- References
- 175
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 144 · 2019: 124 · 2018: 102 · 2017: 110 · 2016: 120 · 2015: 146 · 2014: 149 · 2013: 138 · 2012: 152
- FWCI
- 99.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Abbott Laboratories
- Wellcome Trust
- U.S. National Library of Medicine
- 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
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- CONSORT statement, reporting quality, randomized controlled trials, reporting guidelines, reporting checklist, flowcharts, intention-to-treat analysis, clinical trial transparency, bias in treatment effect estimates
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Publishing, Quality Control, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials 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
