4.6 Article

Active implementation strategy of CONSORT adherence by a dental specialty journal improved randomized clinical trial reporting

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 67, 期 9, 页码 1044-1048

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.001

关键词

CONSORT; Reporting of RCTs; CONSORT implementation; CONSORT compliance; Dental journal; Orthodontics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe a novel CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) adherence strategy implemented by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (MO-DO) and to report its impact on the completeness of reporting of published trials. Study Design and Setting: The AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy, initiated in June 2011, involves active assessment of randomized clinical trial (RCT) reporting during the editorial process. The completeness of reporting CONSORT items was compared between trials submitted and published during the implementation period (July 2011 to September 2013) and trials published between August 2007 and July 2009. Results: Of the 42 RCTs submitted (July 2011 to September 2013), 23 were considered for publication and assessed for completeness of reporting, seven of which were eventually published. For all published RCTs between 2007 and 2009 (n = 20), completeness of reporting by CONSORT item ranged from 0% to 100% (Median = 40%, interquartile range = 60%). All published trials in 2011-2013, reported 33 of 37 CONSORT (sub) items. Four CONSORT 2010 checklist items remained problematic even after implementation of the adherence strategy: changes to methods (3b), changes to outcomes (6b) after the trial commenced, interim analysis (7b), and trial stopping (14b), which are typically only reported when applicable. Conclusion: Trials published following implementation of the AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy completely reported more CONSORT items than those published or submitted previously. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据