Leading journals publish new guidance to improve trial reports

March 24, 2010

New guidance to improve the reporting of trial findings is published simultaneously today (24 March 2010) by the BMJ and eight other leading journals around the world.

Full and transparent reporting of trials is crucial to ensure that decisions about health care are based on the best available evidence.

The guidance, known as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, was first published in 1996 and revised in 2001. It includes a checklist to help authors write reports of randomised controlled trials so that others can judge the reliability and validity of the results.

More than 400 journals and three leading editorial groups across the world have now given their official support to CONSORT.

The latest version, CONSORT 2010, improves the specificity and clarity of the previous checklist. Several new items will also make it easier for decision makers to judge the soundness of trial results. A separate explanatory paper, also published by the BMJ today, provides published examples of transparent reporting.

Speaking on behalf of co-authors, Douglas Altman and David Moher, and for the CONSORT Group, Kenneth Schulz, Distinguished Scientist and Vice President of Family Health International in the US emphasises that CONSORT 2010 represents an evolving guideline. He says: "In the future we will further revise the CONSORT material considering comments, criticisms, experiences, and accumulating new evidence. We invite readers to submit recommendations via the CONSORT website (www.consort-statement.org)."

A study also published by the BMJ today to accompany the guidance shows that, although the quality of trial reporting has improved since publication of the revised CONSORT statement in 2001, it remains well below an acceptable level. The researchers conclude that more journals should endorse CONSORT and, most importantly, they should do more to ensure adherence.

This view is supported in an editorial which says that the guidance is clear, but awareness and endorsement are lagging behind. Author Gerd Antes, Director of the German Cochrane Centre, believes that journal editors should do more to incorporate the CONSORT checklist into the peer review process. He also warns that, although CONSORT has been translated into 10 other languages, not much is known about endorsement and adherence in those areas.

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Drug therapy from lethal bacteria could reduce kidney transplant rejection

August 3, 2017
An experimental treatment derived from a potentially deadly microorganism may provide lifesaving help for kidney transplant patients, according to an international study led by investigators at Cedars-Sinai.

Exploring the potential of human echolocation

June 25, 2017
People who are visually impaired will often use a cane to feel out their surroundings. With training and practice, people can learn to use the pitch, loudness and timbre of echoes from the cane or other sounds to navigate ...

Team eradicates hepatitis C in 10 patients following lifesaving transplants from infected donors

April 30, 2017
Ten patients at Penn Medicine have been cured of the Hepatitis C virus (HCV) following lifesaving kidney transplants from deceased donors who were infected with the disease. The findings point to new strategies for increasing ...

'bench to bedside to bench': Scientists call for closer basic-clinical collaborations

March 24, 2017
In the era of genome sequencing, it's time to update the old "bench-to-bedside" shorthand for how basic research discoveries inform clinical practice, researchers from The Jackson Laboratory (JAX), National Human Genome Research ...

The ethics of tracking athletes' biometric data

January 18, 2017
(Medical Xpress)—Whether it is a FitBit or a heart rate monitor, biometric technologies have become household devices. Professional sports leagues use some of the most technologically advanced biodata tracking systems to ...

Financial ties between researchers and drug industry linked to positive trial results

January 18, 2017
Financial ties between researchers and companies that make the drugs they are studying are independently associated with positive trial results, suggesting bias in the evidence base, concludes a study published by The BMJ ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.