↓ Skip to main content

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
839 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
448 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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 CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2001
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-1-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Moher, Kenneth F Schulz, Douglas G Altman

Abstract

To comprehend the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis and interpretation. That goal can only be achieved through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this paper incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement.The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22-items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biasedestimates of treatment effect or the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, for each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis.In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 448 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 2%
United Kingdom 6 1%
Brazil 5 1%
Netherlands 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Other 11 2%
Unknown 403 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 73 16%
Researcher 65 15%
Student > Master 56 13%
Professor 42 9%
Student > Postgraduate 35 8%
Other 150 33%
Unknown 27 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 188 42%
Psychology 63 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 6%
Social Sciences 17 4%
Other 66 15%
Unknown 55 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,968,651
of 13,928,949 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#309
of 1,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,656
of 189,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,928,949 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 189,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them