Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT): Answering the Call for JOI's Endorsement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.529 | 0.580 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".