You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 276 No. 8, August 28, 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Special Communication
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials

The CONSORT Statement

Colin Begg, PhD; Mildred Cho, PhD; Susan Eastwood, ELS(D); Richard Horton, MB; David Moher, MSc; Ingram Olkin, PhD; Roy Pitkin, MD; Drummond Rennie, MD; Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD; David Simel, MD; Donna F. Stroup, PhD

JAMA. 1996;276(8):637-639.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

THE RANDOMIZED controlled trial (RCT), more than any other methodology, can have a powerful and immediate impact on patient care. Ideally, the report of such an evaluation needs to convey to the reader relevant information concerning the design, conduct, analysis, and generalizability of the trial. This information should provide the reader with the ability to make informed judgments regarding the internal and external validity of the trial. Accurate and complete reporting also benefits editors and reviewers in their deliberations regarding submitted manuscripts. For RCTs to ultimately benefit patients, the published report should be of the highest possible standard.

For editorial comment see p 649.

Evidence produced repeatedly over the last 30 years indicates a wide chasm between what a trial should report and what is actually published in the literature. In a review of 71 RCTs with negative results published between 1960 and 1975, the authors reported that the vast . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]


Author Affiliations

From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (Dr Begg); Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Dr Cho); Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco (Ms Eastwood); The Lancet, London, United Kingdom (Dr Horton); Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Ottawa (Ontario) (Mr Moher); Department of Statistics, Stanford (Calif) University (Dr Olkin); Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles, Calif (Dr Pitkin); JAMA, Chicago, III (Dr Rennie); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga (Drs Schulz and Stroup); and Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham (NC) Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Dr Simel).


Footnotes

Reprints: David Moher, MSc, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Loeb Medical Research Institute, Ottawa Civic Hospital, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4E9 (e-mail: moher@ceu.uottawa.ca).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1996 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.