Commentary: The Journal of Pediatric Psychology Should Adopt the CONSORT Statement as a Way of Improving the Evidence Base in Pediatric Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org) was developed to improve standards of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in medical journals. It currently includes 22 items used by reviewers and editors to ensure consistent and full reporting of the results of an RCT. It also aids researchers in the plan and execution of RCTs. The Journal of the American Medical Association was one of the first journals to adopt the CONSORT items as guidelines to ensure quality reporting of RCTs; since that time over 80 medical journals have adopted these standards for the reviewing and reporting of RCTs. Recent reviews of the quality of RCT reporting have demonstrated that the introduction of the CONSORT statement has a demonstrable impact on the completeness of reporting in numerous medical journals (Moher, Jones, & Lepage, 2001). Neither psychology as a field nor subspecialty areas of psychology have yet adopted CONSORT guidelines for the review and publication of RCTs. Division 12 (Society of Clinical Psychology) Task force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures of the American Psychological Association (Chambless et al., 1996) began reviewing evidence on psychological interventions and enjoined researchers to report their RCT results completely, so that evidence-based recommendations could be forwarded. Yet perennial concerns about the quality of reporting in psychology of evidence-based material available for review remain (Chambless & Ollendick, 2001). As outlined in the accompanying article (Stinson et al., this issue), most of the clinical trials published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology(JPP) already meet some of the 22 CONSORT criteria. However, many important items are reported only infrequently or not at all. In fact, of the 22 items, 14 items were identified as reported in less than 25% of the trials in JPP between 1998 and 2001. Although this seems troubling, other psychology and behavioral medicine journals likely fare no better, and may fare worse (Davidson et al., in press).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.059 | 0.046 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".