The importance of the new CONSORT Statement for clinicians.

@article{Vaarbakken2008TheIO,
  title={The importance of the new CONSORT Statement for clinicians.},
  author={Kjartan Vaarbakken and Anne Elisabeth Ljunggren and Erik J. M. Hendriks},
  journal={The Australian journal of physiotherapy},
  year={2008},
  volume={54 3},
  pages={
          155-6
        }
}
155 Editorial The Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement is an international consensus guide and checklist to improve reports on randomised clinical trials (RCTs). The standard was developed in response to evidence that RCTs have been reported inadequately over the last three decades (Chan and Bhandari 2007, Dickinson et al 2000, Poolman et al 2006), in spite of educational efforts. The CONSORT group of international journal editors, clinical trialists, epidemiologists… Expand
Quality of trials in Australian Journal of Physiotherapy.
TLDR
The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy works closely with submitting authors to ensure they have clearly reported whether features such as concealed allocation and intention-to-treat analysis were carried out, and uses the PEDro scale as a measure of methodological quality of the physiotherapy evidence database. Expand
Critical analysis of the drafting of physical therapy randomized controlled trials published in Portuguese
TLDR
The results make very clear the need to improve the quality of the drafting of the RCTs related to physical therapy in Portuguese and to include more rigorous methodological procedures, such as sample size, randomization and blinding. Expand
The reliability of methodological ratings for speechBITE using the PEDro-P scale.
TLDR
The speechBITE PEDro-P ratings ranged from fair to excellent for both the total score and for each of the 11 scale items, and reliability was equal to that of other databases, suggesting users can be confident of the reliability of ratings published on the website. Expand
Outcomes of early rehabilitation following lumbar microdiscectomy
TLDR
The primary hypothesis that there would be a difference in outcome following lumbar microdiscectomy in patients who receive early specific rehabilitation compared to those who receive standard rehabilitation at another centre, was supported in both primary and secondary outcome data. Expand
PEDro scale can only rate what papers report.

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 21 REFERENCES
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials
TLDR
The revised 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. Expand
Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration.
TLDR
This elaboration and explanation document is developed from a review of the literature to provide examples of adequate reporting in trials of nonpharmacologic treatments and should help to improve the reporting of RCTs performed in this field. Expand
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.
TLDR
For RCTs to ultimately benefit patients, the published report should be of the highest possible standard and should provide the reader with the ability to make informed judgments regarding the internal and external validity of the trial. Expand
The quality of reporting of orthopaedic randomized trials with use of a checklist for nonpharmacological therapies.
TLDR
The survey showed that 41% (95% confidence interval, 25% to 58%) of the trials had adequate allocation concealment when this had been unclear from the report, which reinforces the need for the consistent use of a tool like the Checklist to Evaluate a Report of a Nonpharmacological Trial to assess the methodology of surgical trials. Expand
Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials?
TLDR
Readers should not assume that studies labelled as Level I have high reporting quality and 2) Level I studies have better reporting quality than Level II studies, according to the Levels of Evidence Rating System criteria. Expand
The Reporting of Randomized Clinical Trials Using a Surgical Intervention Is in Need of Immediate Improvement: A Systematic Review
TLDR
Inadequate reporting on the management of the surgical procedure, care providers, and surgery center may introduce bias in RCTs of surgical interventions, making their results questionable. Expand
Size and quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury: review of published studies
Abstract Objective: To assess whether trials in head injury are large enough to avoid moderate random errors and designed to avoid moderate biases. Design: All randomised controlled trials on theExpand
A high-intensity lumbar extensor strengthening program is little better than a low-intensity program or a waiting list control group for chronic low back pain: a randomised clinical trial.
TLDR
Although some beneficial effects were found, the results of this high-intensity strengthening program of the isolated lumbar extensor muscles do not clearly support the generally-claimed beneficial influence of exercise for chronic non-specific low back pain. Expand
Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review
TLDR
Whether the adoption of the CONSORT checklist is associated with improvement in the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is investigated. Expand
No difference between postural exercises and strength and fitness exercises for early, non-specific, work-related upper limb disorders in visual display unit workers: a randomised trial.
TLDR
Postural exercises did not result in a better outcome than strength and fitness exercises, however, 55% of visual display unit workers with early non-specific work-related upper limb disorders reported being free of complaints one year after both interventions were commenced. Expand
...
1
2
3
...