Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17329641›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2007

Reporting implementation in randomized trials: proposed additions to the consolidated standards of reporting trials statement.

Evan Mayo-Wilson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Systematic review of control groups in nutrition education intervention research.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Strategies for communicating contraceptive effectiveness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Evan Mayo-WilsonCentre for Evidence-Based Intervention, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK. Evan.Mayo-Wilson@socres.ox.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials of public health interventions are often complex: practitioners may not deliver interventions as researchers intended, participants may not initiate interventions and may not behave as expected, and interventions and their effects may vary with environmental and social context. Reports of randomized controlled trials can be misleading when they omit information about the implementation of interventions, yet such data are frequently absent in trial reports, even in journals that endorse current reporting guidelines. Particularly for complex interventions, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement does not include all types of information needed to understand the results of randomized controlled trials. CONSORT should be expanded to include more information about the implementation of interventions in all trial arms.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicMandatory ReportingHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID17329641
PMCPMC1829360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.