CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*

Similar documents
CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*

CHECK-LISTS AND Tools DR F. R E Z A E I DR E. G H A D E R I K U R D I S TA N U N I V E R S I T Y O F M E D I C A L S C I E N C E S

Details on the procedure and devices used for assessment and calculation of

From protocol to publication: ensuring quality in the reporting of continence research Workshop 20 Monday, August 23rd 2010, 14:00 17:00

Supplementary Online Content

Comorbidome, Pattern, and Impact of Asthma-COPD Overlap Syndrome in Real Life

Guidelines for Reporting Non-Randomised Studies

Title 1 Descriptive title identifying the study design, population, interventions, and, if applicable, trial acronym

a) Subjects must be willing and able to give signed and dated written informed consent.

Randomized Controlled Trial

Use of nicorandil is Associated with Increased Risk for Gastrointestinal Ulceration and Perforation- A Nationally Representative Populationbased

Issues to Consider in the Design of Randomized Controlled Trials

The QUOROM Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of systematic reviews

Evidence-based Imaging: Critically Appraising Studies of Diagnostic Tests

Supplementary appendix

Study group SBS-AE. Version

Appendices. Appendix A Search terms

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies (MOOSE): Checklist.

Peer review & Critical Appraisal. Dr Leila Ghalichi

Improving reporting for observational studies: STROBE statement

1. Draft checklist for judging on quality of animal studies (Van der Worp et al., 2010)

The influence of CONSORT on the quality of reports of RCTs: An updated review. Thanks to MRC (UK), and CIHR (Canada) for funding support

Reviewer No. 1 checklist for application of: inclusion of Nifurtimox + eflornithine in the WHO Essential Medicines List

Reporting guidelines

CONSORT 2010 Statement Annals Internal Medicine, 24 March History of CONSORT. CONSORT-Statement. Ji-Qian Fang. Inadequate reporting damages RCT

Korea-China Editorial Workshop

Appendix G: Methodology checklist: the QUADAS tool for studies of diagnostic test accuracy 1

Garbage in - garbage out? Impact of poor reporting on the development of systematic reviews

BMJ Open. For peer review only -

Downloaded from:

Impact of STARD on reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies in a top Indian Medical Journal: A retrospective survey

Are the likely benefits worth the potential harms and costs? From McMaster EBCP Workshop/Duke University Medical Center

Protocol Development: The Guiding Light of Any Clinical Study

The comparison or control group may be allocated a placebo intervention, an alternative real intervention or no intervention at all.

Clinical Study Design: From Pilot to Randomized Controlled Trials

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology: review of adherence to the CONSORT statement

CONSORT: missing missing data guidelines, the effects on HTA monograph reporting Yvonne Sylvestre

STUDIES OF THE ACCURACY OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTS: (Relevant JAMA Users Guide Numbers IIIA & B: references (5,6))

Rational health care practices require knowledge about. Academia and Clinic

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA. Supplementary Figure S1. Search terms*

Nature and significance of the local problem

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Peer review & Critical Appraisal

Eldridge, SM, Chan, CL, Campbell, MJ, Bond, CM, Hopewell, S, Thabane, L and Lancaster, GA

Systematic Reviews. Simon Gates 8 March 2007

Critical Appraisal Series

4/10/2018. Choosing a study design to answer a specific research question. Importance of study design. Types of study design. Types of study design

Table S1- PRISMA 2009 Checklist

Standards for the reporting of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews

Pain Physician. Information for Authors. Author Guidelines. Managing Editor

Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Methodological Guidelines

GLOSSARY OF GENERAL TERMS

EQUATOR Network: promises and results of reporting guidelines

Guidance Document for Claims Based on Non-Inferiority Trials

Rational health care practices require knowledge about the

Original Article. and non-consort-endorsing

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Detrusor contraction during rapid bladder filling: Caused by cold or warm water? A randomized controlled double-blind trial

Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 4: Observational Studies

GRADE. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. British Association of Dermatologists April 2018

Guidance for Industry

Checklist for appraisal of study relevance (child sex offenses)

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)

Inhaled Hypertonic Saline In Adults Hospitalized For Exacerbation Of Cystic Fibrosis Lung Disease: A Retrospective Study For peer review only

Instrument for the assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analysis

First author. Title: Journal

Systematic and critical review of research studies. Prof. dr Tiny Jaarsma

Systematic reviews: From evidence to recommendation. Marcel Dijkers, PhD, FACRM Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Diagnostic Study Planning Guide

Drafting a quantitative epidemiological research paper

Fang Hua 1,2*, Tanya Walsh 2, Anne-Marie Glenny 2 and Helen Worthington 2*

Clinical Research Scientific Writing. K. A. Koram NMIMR

Recent developments for combining evidence within evidence streams: bias-adjusted meta-analysis

CLINICAL PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT

Online Supplementary Material

Maxing out on quality appraisal of your research: Avoiding common pitfalls. Policy influenced by study quality

GATE CAT Intervention RCT/Cohort Studies

GATE CAT Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

Quality of Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 1

Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews

In medicine, numerous decisions are made by care

Research Trends in Post Graduate Medical Students, Pune

RATING OF A RESEARCH PAPER. By: Neti Juniarti, S.Kp., M.Kes., MNurs

BMJ Open. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration

Appendix 2 Quality assessment tools. Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. Support for judgment

Controlled Trials. Spyros Kitsiou, PhD

Zhengtao Liu 1,2,3*, Shuping Que 4*, Lin Zhou 1,2,3 Author affiliation:

Statistical Analysis Plans

Comparison of Single versus Double Drains after Modified Radical Mastectomy: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Glossary. Ó 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analysis in Kidney Transplantation

EDDA Study Designs Taxonomy (version 2.0)

CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING A RESEARCH REPORT Provided by Dr. Blevins

Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews

Component of CPG development ILAE Recommendation Document Identifying topic and developing clinical. S3 research question

Conducting and managing randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

The SPIRIT Initiative: Defining standard protocol items

Department of OUTCOMES RESEARCH

The Research Roadmap Checklist

About Reading Scientific Studies

Transcription:

CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial* Section/Topic Title and abstract Introduction Background and objectives Item No Checklist item 1a Identification as a randomised trial in the title 1b Structured summary of trial design, methods, results, and conclusions (for specific guidance see CONSORT for abstracts) 2a Scientific background and explanation of rationale 2b Specific objectives or hypotheses Reported on page No Methods Trial design 3a Description of trial design (such as parallel, factorial) including allocation ratio 3b Important changes to methods after trial commencement (such as eligibility criteria), with reasons Participants 4a Eligibility criteria for participants 4b Settings and locations where the data were collected Interventions 5 The interventions for each group with sufficient details to allow replication, including how and when they were actually administered Outcomes 6a Completely defined pre-specified primary and secondary outcome measures, including how and when they were assessed 6b Any changes to trial outcomes after the trial commenced, with reasons Sample size 7a How sample size was determined 7b When applicable, explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines Randomisation: Sequence 8a Method used to generate the random allocation sequence generation 8b Type of randomisation; details of any restriction (such as blocking and block size) Allocation concealment mechanism 9 Mechanism used to implement the random allocation sequence (such as sequentially numbered containers), describing any steps taken to conceal the sequence until interventions were assigned Implementation 10 Who generated the random allocation sequence, who enrolled participants, and who assigned participants to interventions Blinding 11a If done, who was blinded after assignment to interventions (for example, participants, care providers, those CONSORT 2010 checklist Page 1

assessing outcomes) and how 11b If relevant, description of the similarity of interventions Statistical methods 12a Statistical methods used to compare groups for primary and secondary outcomes 12b Methods for additional analyses, such as subgroup analyses and adjusted analyses Results Participant flow (a diagram is strongly recommended) 13a For each group, the numbers of participants who were randomly assigned, received intended treatment, and were analysed for the primary outcome 13b For each group, losses and exclusions after randomisation, together with reasons Recruitment 14a Dates defining the periods of recruitment and follow-up 14b Why the trial ended or was stopped Baseline data 15 A table showing baseline demographic and clinical characteristics for each group Numbers analysed 16 For each group, number of participants (denominator) included in each analysis and whether the analysis was by original assigned groups Outcomes and estimation 17a For each primary and secondary outcome, results for each group, and the estimated effect size and its precision (such as 95% confidence interval) 17b For binary outcomes, presentation of both absolute and relative effect sizes is recommended Ancillary analyses 18 Results of any other analyses performed, including subgroup analyses and adjusted analyses, distinguishing pre-specified from exploratory Harms 19 All important harms or unintended effects in each group (for specific guidance see CONSORT for harms) Discussion Limitations 20 Trial limitations, addressing sources of potential bias, imprecision, and, if relevant, multiplicity of analyses Generalisability 21 Generalisability (external validity, applicability) of the trial findings Interpretation 22 Interpretation consistent with results, balancing benefits and harms, and considering other relevant evidence Other information Registration 23 Registration number and name of trial registry Protocol 24 Where the full trial protocol can be accessed, if available Funding 25 Sources of funding and other support (such as supply of drugs), role of funders *We strongly recommend reading this statement in conjunction with the CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration for important clarifications on all the items. If relevant, we also recommend reading CONSORT extensions for cluster randomised trials, non-inferiority and equivalence trials, non-pharmacological treatments, herbal interventions, and pragmatic trials. Additional extensions are forthcoming: for those and for up to date references relevant to this checklist, see www.consort-statement.org. CONSORT 2010 checklist Page 2

STARD checklist for the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. First official version, January 2003. Section and Topic Item # On page # TITLE/ABSTRACT/ KEYWORDS 1 Identify the article as a study of diagnostic accuracy (recommend MeSH heading sensitivity and specificity ). INTRODUCTION 2 State the research questions or study aims, such as estimating diagnostic accuracy or comparing accuracy between tests or across participant groups. METHODS Participants 3 Describe the study population: The inclusion and exclusion criteria, setting and locations where the data were collected. 4 Describe participant recruitment: Was recruitment based on presenting symptoms, results from previous tests, or the fact that the participants had received the index tests or the reference standard? 5 Describe participant sampling: Was the study population a consecutive series of participants defined by the selection criteria in items 3 and 4? If not, specify how participants were further selected. 6 Describe data collection: Was data collection planned before the index test and reference standard were performed (prospective study) or after (retrospective study)? Test methods 7 Describe the reference standard and its rationale. 8 Describe technical specifications of material and methods involved including how and when measurements were taken, and/or cite references for index tests and reference standard. 9 Describe definition of and rationale for the units, cutoffs and/or categories of the results of the index tests and the reference standard. 10 Describe the number, training and expertise of the persons executing and reading the index tests and the reference standard. 11 Describe whether or not the readers of the index tests and reference standard were blind (masked) to the results of the other test and describe any other clinical information available to the readers. Statistical methods 12 Describe methods for calculating or comparing measures of diagnostic accuracy, and the statistical methods used to quantify uncertainty (e.g. 95% confidence intervals). RESULTS 13 Describe methods for calculating test reproducibility, if done. Participants 14 Report when study was done, including beginning and ending dates of recruitment. 15 Report clinical and demographic characteristics of the study population (e.g. age, sex, spectrum of presenting symptoms, comorbidity, current treatments, recruitment centers). 16 Report the number of participants satisfying the criteria for inclusion that did or did not undergo the index tests and/or the reference standard; describe why participants failed to receive either test (a flow diagram is strongly recommended). Test results 17 Report time interval from the index tests to the reference standard, and any treatment administered between. 18 Report distribution of severity of disease (define criteria) in those with the target condition; other diagnoses in participants without the target condition. 19 Report a cross tabulation of the results of the index tests (including indeterminate and missing results) by the results of the reference standard; for continuous results, the distribution of the test results by the results of the reference standard. 20 Report any adverse events from performing the index tests or the reference standard. Estimates 21 Report estimates of diagnostic accuracy and measures of statistical uncertainty (e.g. 95% confidence intervals). 22 Report how indeterminate results, missing responses and outliers of the index tests were handled. 23 Report estimates of variability of diagnostic accuracy between subgroups of participants, readers or centers, if done. 24 Report estimates of test reproducibility, if done. DISCUSSION 25 Discuss the clinical applicability of the study findings.

STROBE Statement checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies Item No Title and abstract 1 Recommendation (a) Indicate the study s design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract (b) Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found Introduction Background/rationale 2 Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported Objectives 3 State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses Methods Study design 4 Present key elements of study design early in the paper Setting Participants 5 6 Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection (a) Cohort study Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants. Describe methods of follow-up Case-control study Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of case ascertainment and control selection. Give the rationale for the choice of cases and controls Cross-sectional study Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants (b) Cohort study For matched studies, give matching criteria and number of exposed and unexposed Case-control study For matched studies, give matching criteria and the number of controls per case Variables 7 Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable Data sources/ measurement 8* For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group Bias 9 Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias Study size 10 Explain how the study size was arrived at Quantitative variables Statistical methods 11 12 Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why (a) Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding (b) Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions (c) Explain how missing data were addressed (d) Cohort study If applicable, explain how loss to follow-up was addressed Case-control study If applicable, explain how matching of cases and controls was addressed Cross-sectional study If applicable, describe analytical methods taking account of sampling strategy (e) Describe any sensitivity analyses Continued on next page 1

Results Participants 13* (a) Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study eg numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and analysed (b) Give reasons for non-participation at each stage Descriptive 14* (c) Consider use of a flow diagram (a) Give characteristics of study participants (eg demographic, clinical, social) and information data on exposures and potential confounders (b) Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest Outcome data 15* (c) Cohort study Summarise follow-up time (eg, average and total amount) Cohort study Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures over time Case-control study Report numbers in each exposure category, or summary measures of exposure Main results 16 Cross-sectional study Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures (a) Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (eg, 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included (b) Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized (c) If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period Other analyses 17 Report other analyses done eg analyses of subgroups and interactions, and sensitivity analyses Discussion Key results 18 Summarise key results with reference to study objectives Limitations 19 Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias Interpretation 20 Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence Generalisability 21 Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results Other information Funding 22 Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based *Give information separately for cases and controls in case-control studies and, if applicable, for exposed and unexposed groups in cohort and cross-sectional studies. Note: An Explanation and Elaboration article discusses each checklist item and gives methodological background and published examples of transparent reporting. The STROBE checklist is best used in conjunction with this article (freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine at http://www.plosmedicine.org/, Annals of Internal Medicine at http://www.annals.org/, and Epidemiology at http://www.epidem.com/). Information on the STROBE Initiative is available at www.strobe-statement.org. 2