MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1531083643 · doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.02058.x

CONSORT comes to TRANSFUSION

2009· editorial· en· W1531083643 sur OpenAlexaff
Nancy M. Heddle, Paul M. Ness

Notice bibliographique

RevueTransfusion · 2009
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésChecklistConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsGeneralizability theoryRandomized controlled trialMedicineStatement (logic)Quality (philosophy)GuidelineSet (abstract data type)MEDLINEClinical trialFamily medicineMedical educationMedical physicsComputer sciencePsychologyStatisticsSurgeryMathematicsPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In January 2007 we introduced the readers of TRANSFUSION to the CONSORT Statement.1 CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) is an initiative that resulted from a merging of two independent groups who in the early 1990s were both working to improve the reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These groups were composed of clinical trial specialists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and journal editors. Their efforts resulted in the CONSORT Statement that was first published in 19962 and was later revised in 2001.3 The CONSORT statement provides a minimum set of evidence-based recommendations for reporting parallel group RCTs. For authors, these recommendations provide a road map for complete and transparent reporting of clinical trials. For reviewers, CONSORT provides a template to assess the quality of the report and provide useful feedback regarding changes that would improve the submission. The ultimate goal is to publish a high-quality manuscript that gives readers the information they need to appraise the article critically and make an interpretation as to the generalizability of the findings to practice. The CONSORT Statement has two important components: a 22-item checklist and a flow diagram.3 Both the checklist and the flow diagram can be accessed at the website http://www.consort-statement.org. The checklist has 22 items that are all evidence-based. Failing to report the information on the items can be associated with a biased estimate of a treatment effect or omitting information that is critical for the reader to determine the relevance and reliability of the results. The checklist items are categorized under the headings of title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. The checklist is user-friendly with specific examples and explanations provided. The flow diagram is a method to summarize how study participants pass through the various stages of an RCT: enrollment, treatment allocation, follow-up, and analysis. All manuscripts reporting the results of an RCT should include such a flow diagram because it provides transparency and allows readers to identify potential biases or limitations of the study. After a quick inspection of the requirements in the checklist and the flow diagram, it will immediately become apparent that researchers need to be familiar with CONSORT not only when the study is reported but also when the study is designed. Most of the checklist items require careful consideration when designing a research protocol. Failure to consider these important issues can jeopardize the validity of the study results and make it impossible to comply with CONSORT when reporting. The CONSORT website also provides several other resources for TRANSFUSION readers and contributors: The CONSORT “Explanation and Elaboration” document is designed to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT Statement, and the “Extensions of the CONSORT Statement” have been developed for other types of study designs, interventions, and data. Both can be accessed through the CONSORT website. Our international readers will be pleased to know that CONSORT now is available in 10 different languages other than English. There is scientific evidence to suggest that the use of CONSORT results in improved quality of RCT reporting.4,5 Continuous monitoring of the biomedical literature also facilitates modifications to the checklist and flow diagram, whereby items can be changed, deleted, or added as necessary.6 CONSORT is endorsed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE),7 the Council of Science Editors (CSE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and is being supported by a growing number of health care and medical journals.8-11 The Editor and Associate Editors of TRANSFUSION have all endorsed the concept that the CONSORT Statement should be followed when submitting an RCT manuscript to TRANSFUSION. The Journal's Editorial Board has been apprised of this requirement and reviewers will be asked to review RCT submissions based on the CONSORT requirements. The instructions for authors published in the January 2008 volume of the journal have also been changed to reflect the new requirement.12 These requirements will not only serve our readers by providing comprehensive and transparent research findings, but will also serve the many patients who consent to participate in clinical research by ensuring that studies are well designed and well reported.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,087
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Communication savante, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,098
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0870,024
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0080,005
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0040,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0280,014

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,444
Tête enseignante GPT0,494
Écart entre enseignants0,050 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTransfusionMême sujetMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsTravaux en français237 207