Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38051324›Full record

ReviewJAMA2023

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

Brennan C Kahan, Sophie S Hall, Elaine M Beller, Megan Birchenall, An-Wen Chan, Diana Elbourne, Paul Little, John Fletcher, Robert M Golub, Beatriz Goulao and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07397260 (Effects of Manually Recorded or Automatically Transmitted Home Blood Pressures With or Without Automated Patient Feedback on Hypertension Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT07397260 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Manually Recorded or Automatically Transmitted Home Blood Pressures With or Without Automated Patient Feedback on Hypertension Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthwestern UniversityRan2026 to 2028Enrolled1,304ConditionsHypertension (HTN)ArmsSelf report of home measured blood pressure via patient EHR portal, Automated feedback about home blood pressure results, Automated Transmission of Remotely Measured Blood Pressure
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. The median Effective Dose (EDBMC anesthesiology · 2025
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  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

15 authors at 11 institutions in 4 countries.

Brennan C KahanMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Sophie S HallNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Elaine M BellerInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Queensland, Australia.
Megan BirchenallNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
An-Wen ChanWomen's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Diana ElbourneLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Paul LittlePrimary Care Research Centre, School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
John FletcherThe BMJ, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, United Kingdom.
Robert M GolubDepartment of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Beatriz GoulaoHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Sally HopewellOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Nazrul IslamPrimary Care Research Centre, School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Merrick ZwarensteinCentre For Studies in Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Edmund JuszczakNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Alan A MontgomeryNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
University of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBBond University · AUBritish Medical Association · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBNorthwestern University · USUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBWestern University · CAWomen's College Hospital · CA

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/07Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/09Medical Research Council MR/V020803/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials. Design: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist. Findings: This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

Indexed as

DisclosureRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignChecklistConsensusHumansReference Standards

Identifiers

PMID38051324
PMCPMC7617336
OpenAlexW4389334827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.