ArticleTrials2010
Cars, CONSORT 2010, and clinical practice.
Article in Trials, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review protocol.International journal of surgery protocols · 2018Article
- An assessment of the quality of reporting randomised controlled trials published in paediatric dentistry journals.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2015Article
- Clinical trials submitted to the JID: place your bet and show us your hand.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2015Article
- Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.Systematic reviews · 2015Article
- IJD(®): Consorting with CONSORT 2010.Indian journal of dermatology · 2013Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Just like you would not buy a car without key information such as service history, you would not "buy" a clinical trial report without key information such as concealment of allocation. Implementation of the updated CONSORT 2010 statement enables the reader to see exactly what was done in a trial, to whom and when. A fully "CONSORTed" trial report does not necessarily mean the trial is a good one, but at least the reader can make a judgement. Clear reporting is a pre-requisite for judgement of study quality. The CONSORT statement evolves as empirical research moves on. CONSORT 2010 is even clearer than before and includes some new items with a particular emphasis on selective reporting of outcomes. The challenge is for everyone to use it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.