↓ Skip to main content

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
4 policy sources
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
763 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
553 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2001
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-1-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Moher, Kenneth F Schulz, Douglas G Altman

Abstract

To comprehend the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis and interpretation. That goal can only be achieved through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this paper incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement.The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22-items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biasedestimates of treatment effect or the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, for each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis.In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 553 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 2%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Netherlands 4 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 10 2%
Unknown 512 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 15%
Researcher 71 13%
Student > Master 66 12%
Professor 46 8%
Student > Postgraduate 43 8%
Other 179 32%
Unknown 67 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 213 39%
Psychology 66 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 6%
Social Sciences 21 4%
Other 93 17%
Unknown 95 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,798,764
of 25,769,258 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#228
of 2,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,403
of 43,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,769,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 43,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them