Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT): Answering the Call for JOI's Endorsement
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the March, 2014, issue of the Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice, Kiriakou et al,1 assessed the completeness of the abstract reporting of randomized clinical trials (aka, randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) in six leading journals of oral implantology. Journal of Oral Implantology (JOI) was included in the study. Assessment tools were based upon the recommendations of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Group's 2010 recommendations (http://www.consort-statement.org). It was concluded that reporting quality in RCT abstracts in oral implantology journals needs to be improved. It was further concluded that to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting, editors and authors for dental implant journals should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT.1Empirical evidence indicates that bias is present in controlled trials when insufficient methodological approaches are utilized. This is especially true if there is inadequate allocation concealment and a lack of sufficient randomization.2–4 Therefore in 1993, 30 experts met to debate methods of improving and standardizing the reporting of randomized trials. Through an evolution that joined US- and Canadian-based groups, the CONSORT Group was formed.Today, the CONSORT Group includes medical journal editors, clinical trial designers, epidemiologists, and methodologists. The current 2010 CONSORT guidelines include a 25-item checklist with focus on trial design, analysis, and interpretation. There is also a participant flow diagram that displays the progress of all participants through the trial. These international guidelines provide a standard protocol for authors to use when preparing manuscripts reporting trial findings. The protocol facilitates complete and transparent reporting, reducing the influence of bias, and aiding critical appraisal and interpretation.The core CONSORT statement is based on the “standard” two-group parallel design. However, the CONSORT Group has extended and modified the core CONSORT statement for application in intervention reports, patient data analysis, plus other randomized trial designs (ie, cluster trials, noninferiority and equivalence trials, and pragmatic trials). The extensions and modifications are a constant work in progress.Over 600 journals and editorial groups worldwide that include The Lancet, BMJ, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, World Association of Medical Editors, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, now endorse the CONSORT statement. JOI has begun the endorsement process. Beginning with this issue of JOI, new Clinical Research and Dental Implant Research submissions will be required to follow the CONSORT 2010 statement. Instructions and a link to the CONSORT Group website will be included in the Instructions for Authors section of the PeerTrack JOI electronic submission portal (http://www.editorialmanager.com/aaid-joi/).Randomized clinical trials, the most rigorous of clinical trials, minimize the risk of confounding factors influencing the results.3–6 JOI has a history of publishing RCTs.7–10 Following the CONSORT 2010 statement will improve JOI's ability to provide unbiased information that meets the demand for improved treatment strategies with the goal of optimal patient care.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,529 | 0,580 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,017 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».