↓ Skip to main content

The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.

Overview of attention for article published in ACP Journal Club, April 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
9 policy sources
patent
19 patents
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3173 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
899 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.
Published in
ACP Journal Club, April 2001
DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012
Pubmed ID
Authors

D G Altman, K F Schulz, D Moher, M Egger, F Davidoff, D Elbourne, P C Gøtzsche, T Lang

Abstract

Overwhelming evidence now indicates that the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) is less than optimal. Recent methodologic analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which boast the elimination of systematic error as their primary hallmark. Systematic error in RCTs reflects poor science, and poor science threatens proper ethical standards. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Con solidated S tandards o f R eporting T rials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have adopted the CONSORT statement. The CONSORT statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs by providing guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of their trials. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For most items, at least one published example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies are provided. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT statement, this explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated Web site ( http://www.consort-statement.org ) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomized trials. Throughout the text, terms marked with an asterisk are defined at end of text.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 899 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 13 1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
Brazil 7 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Other 12 1%
Unknown 844 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 130 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 109 12%
Student > Master 107 12%
Professor 65 7%
Student > Bachelor 64 7%
Other 261 29%
Unknown 163 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 308 34%
Psychology 77 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 4%
Social Sciences 32 4%
Other 153 17%
Unknown 219 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2024.
All research outputs
#897,712
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from ACP Journal Club
#2,599
of 13,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#523
of 42,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ACP Journal Club
#2
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,121 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 64.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 42,869 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.