Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30397513›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2018

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT extension for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.

Linda Kwakkenbos, Edmund Juszczak, Lars G Hemkens, Margaret Sampson, Ole Fröbert, Clare Relton, Chris Gale, Merrick Zwarenstein, Sinéad M Langan, David Moher and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Contemporary use of real-world data for clinical trial conduct in the United States: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  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

23 authors.

Linda Kwakkenbos1Behavioural Science Institute, Clinical Psychology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Edmund Juszczak2NPEU Clinical Trials Unit, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lars G Hemkens3Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Margaret Sampson4Library Services, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
Ole Fröbert5Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Clare Relton6Centre for Clinical Trials and Methodology, Barts Institute of Population Health Science, Queen Mary University, London, UK.
Chris Gale7Section of Neonatal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, Chelsea and Westminster Campus, London, UK.
Merrick Zwarenstein8Department of Family Medicine, Western University, London, Canada.
Sinéad M Langan10Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
David Moher11Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Isabelle Boutron12INSERM, UMR1153, Paris, France.
Philippe Ravaud12INSERM, UMR1153, Paris, France.
Marion K Campbell15Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Kimberly A Mc Cord3Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Tjeerd P van Staa16Health e-Research Centre, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Lehana Thabane18Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Rudolf Uher19Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Helena M Verkooijen20University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Eric I Benchimol22Department of Pediatrics and School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
David Erlinge25Department of Cardiology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Maureen SauvéScleroderma Society of Ontario, Hamilton, Canada.
David Torgerson28York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Brett D Thombs29Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, 4333 Cote Ste Catherine Road, Montreal, QC H3T 1E4 Canada.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Medical Research Council MR/N008405/1Wellcome Trust 205039/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often complex and expensive to perform. Less than one third achieve planned recruitment targets, follow-up can be labor-intensive, and many have limited real-world generalizability. Designs for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data, including registries, electronic health records, and administrative databases, have been proposed to address these challenges and are being rapidly adopted. These designs, however, are relatively recent innovations, and published RCT reports often do not describe important aspects of their methodology in a standardized way. Our objective is to extend the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement with a consensus-driven reporting guideline for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.

methodsThe development of this CONSORT extension will consist of five phases. Phase 1 (completed) consisted of the project launch, including fundraising, the establishment of a research team, and development of a conceptual framework. In phase 2, a systematic review will be performed to identify publications (1) that describe methods or reporting considerations for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data or (2) that are protocols or report results from such RCTs. An initial "long list" of possible modifications to CONSORT checklist items and possible new items for the reporting guideline will be generated based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statements. Additional possible modifications and new items will be identified based on the results of the systematic review. Phase 3 will consist of a three-round Delphi exercise with methods and content experts to evaluate the "long list" and generate a "short list" of key items. In phase 4, these items will serve as the basis for an in-person consensus meeting to finalize a core set of items to be included in the reporting guideline and checklist. Phase 5 will involve drafting the checklist and elaboration-explanation documents, and dissemination and implementation of the guideline. DISCUSSION: Development of this CONSORT extension will contribute to more transparent reporting of RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data.

Indexed as

Administrative dataCohortCONSORTElectronic health recordsElectronic medical recordsElectronic patient recordsRandomized controlled trialsRCTsRegistriesReporting guidelineRoutinely collected health data

Identifiers

PMID30397513
PMCPMC6205772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.