Cargando…

Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8

Objective To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials. Design Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quali...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ivers, N M, Taljaard, M, Dixon, S, Bennett, C, McRae, A, Taleban, J, Skea, Z, Brehaut, J C, Boruch, R F, Eccles, M P, Grimshaw, J M, Weijer, C, Zwarenstein, M, Donner, A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21948873
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5886
_version_ 1782212595173818368
author Ivers, N M
Taljaard, M
Dixon, S
Bennett, C
McRae, A
Taleban, J
Skea, Z
Brehaut, J C
Boruch, R F
Eccles, M P
Grimshaw, J M
Weijer, C
Zwarenstein, M
Donner, A
author_facet Ivers, N M
Taljaard, M
Dixon, S
Bennett, C
McRae, A
Taleban, J
Skea, Z
Brehaut, J C
Boruch, R F
Eccles, M P
Grimshaw, J M
Weijer, C
Zwarenstein, M
Donner, A
author_sort Ivers, N M
collection PubMed
description Objective To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials. Design Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting. Data sources A validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8. Results There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals. Conclusion The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3180203
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31802032011-10-06 Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8 Ivers, N M Taljaard, M Dixon, S Bennett, C McRae, A Taleban, J Skea, Z Brehaut, J C Boruch, R F Eccles, M P Grimshaw, J M Weijer, C Zwarenstein, M Donner, A BMJ Research Objective To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials. Design Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting. Data sources A validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8. Results There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals. Conclusion The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2011-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3180203/ /pubmed/21948873 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5886 Text en © Ivers et al 2011 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Research
Ivers, N M
Taljaard, M
Dixon, S
Bennett, C
McRae, A
Taleban, J
Skea, Z
Brehaut, J C
Boruch, R F
Eccles, M P
Grimshaw, J M
Weijer, C
Zwarenstein, M
Donner, A
Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8
title Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8
title_full Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8
title_fullStr Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8
title_full_unstemmed Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8
title_short Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8
title_sort impact of consort extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21948873
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5886
work_keys_str_mv AT iversnm impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT taljaardm impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT dixons impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT bennettc impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT mcraea impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT talebanj impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT skeaz impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT brehautjc impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT boruchrf impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT ecclesmp impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT grimshawjm impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT weijerc impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT zwarensteinm impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008
AT donnera impactofconsortextensionforclusterrandomisedtrialsonqualityofreportingandstudymethodologyreviewofrandomsampleof300trials20008