Cited by 193Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 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 access
Moher, David, Schulz, Kenneth F., Altman, Douglas G.·2001·Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association

Abstract

To comprehend the results of a randomized, controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only 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 biased estimates of treatment effect or because 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 trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, for each intervention group, that are 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7547/87507315-91-8-437

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Egger, Ju ni The value of patient flow charts in reports of randomized controlled trials : bibliographic study The CONSORT Group In press, JAMA
  2. Moher, Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials : a comparative before and after evaluation ? The CONSORT Group In press, JAMA
  3. Moher, Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials : a comparative before and after evaluation ? The CONSORT Group In press, JAMA
  4. Egger, Ju ni The value of patient flow charts in reports of randomized controlled trials : bibliographic study The CONSORT Group In press, JAMA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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)
Venue
Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2001-09
Volume
91
Issue
8
Pages
437-442
ISSN
  • 1930-8264 (ISSN-L)
  • 8750-7315
OpenAlex
W2082317966
Cited by
193
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Abbott Laboratories
  • 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, reporting checklist, flowcharts, intention-to-treat analysis, bias in treatment effect estimation, clinical trial transparency
MeSH terms
Humans, Publishing, Quality Control, Research Design, 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