Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39606687›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2024

Reporting guidelines for randomised controlled trial reports of implantable neurostimulation devices: the CONSORT-iNeurostim extension.

Rui V Duarte, Rebecca Bresnahan, Sue Copley, Sam Eldabe, Simon Thomson, Richard B North, Ganesan Baranidharan, Robert M Levy, Gary S Collins, Rod S Taylor

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Neuroprosthetic closed-loop strategy for sustained blood pressure reduction via simultaneous stimulation and recording from the spinal cord.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
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

10 authors.

Rui V DuarteLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Rebecca BresnahanLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Sue CopleyDepartment of Pain Medicine, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Sam EldabeDepartment of Pain Medicine, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Simon ThomsonPain Medicine and Neuromodulation, Mid and South Essex University Hospitals NHSFT, Basildon, UK.
Richard B NorthNeurosurgery, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine (ret.), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ganesan BaranidharanLeeds Neuromodulation Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK.
Robert M LevyInternational Neuromodulation Society, San Francisco, USA.
Gary S CollinsCentre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rod S TaylorMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit & Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Health and Well Being, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement has improved the quality of reporting of randomised trials. Extensions to the CONSORT statement are often needed to address specific issues of trial reporting, including those relevant to particular types of interventions. Methodological and reporting deficiencies in clinical trials of implantable neurostimulation devices are common. The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension is a new reporting guideline for randomised controlled trials evaluating implantable neurostimulation devices. Methods: CONSORT-iNeurostim was developed using the EQUATOR methodological framework including a literature review and expert consultation to generate an initial list of candidate items. The candidate items were included in a two-round Delphi survey, discussed at an international consensus meeting (42 stakeholders including healthcare professionals, methodologists, journal editors and industry representatives from the United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands and other countries), and refined through a checklist pilot (18 stakeholders). Findings: The initial extension item list included 49 candidate items relevant to CONSORT-iNeurostim. We received 132 responses in the first round of the Delphi survey and 99 responses in the second round. Participants suggested an additional 20 candidate items for CONSORT-iNeurostim during the first round of the survey, and those achieving initial consensus were discussed at the consensus meeting. The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension includes 7 new checklist items, including one item for reporting the neurostimulation intervention comprising a separate checklist of 14 items. Interpretation: The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension will promote increased transparency, clarity, and completeness of trial reports of implantable neurostimulation devices. It will assist journal editors, peer-reviewers, and readers to better interpret the appropriateness and generalisability of the methods used and reported outcomes. Funding: Abbott, Boston Scientific Corp., Mainstay Medical, Medtronic Ltd, Nevro Corp. and Saluda Medical.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsConsensus statementDelphi surveyNeurostimulationReporting guidelines

Identifiers

PMID39606687
PMCPMC11600657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.