CONSORT 2010说明与详述：报告平行对照随机临床试验指南的更新

大量证据显示随机对照临床试验（randomised controlled trial,RCT）的报告质量不理想。报告不透明,则读者既不能评判试验结果是否真实可靠,也不能从中提取可用于系统综述的信息。最近的方法学分析表明,报告不充分和设计不合理与对治疗效果产生评价偏倚有关。这种系统误差对RCT损害严重,而RCT正是以其能减少或避免偏倚而被视为评价干预措施的金标准。为了提高RCT的报告质量,一个由专家和编辑组成的工作组制定了临床试验报告的统一标准（Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials,CONSORT）声明。CONSORT声明于1996年首次发表,并于2001年更新。声明由对照检查清单和流程图组成,供作者在报告RCT时使用。许多核心医学期刊和主要国际性编辑组织都已认可CONSORT声明。该声明促进了对RCT的严格评价和解释。2001年,在对CONSORT进行修订时,人们就已经清楚地认识到,解释和说明制定CONSORT声明的原理,有助于研究人员等撰写或评价临床试验报告。一篇CONSORT说明与详述文章于2001年同2001版CONSORT声明一起发表。2007年1月的专家会议之后,对CONSORT声明作了进一步修订并已发表,即＂CONSORT2010声明＂。这次更新对原版对照检查清单作了文字上的修改,使其更为明晰,并收入了与一些新近才认识到的主题相关的建议,如选择性报告结局产生的偏倚。说明与详述文件旨在加强人们对CONSORT声明的理解、应用和传播,这次也作了大量修订,对每一项新增或更新的清单条目的含义和增改理由进行了解释,提供了优秀的报告实例,还尽可能地提供了相关的经验性研究的参考文献。文中收入了若干流程图实例。＂CONSORT2010声明＂、其说明与详述文件,以及相关网站（www.consort-statement.org）,对于改进随机临床试验报告必将有所裨益。     

报告非药物随机对照临床试验的CONSORT扩展声明：说明与详述（一）

正确报告随机对照临床试验（randomized controlled trial,RCT）是严格评价试验结果真实性与有效性的必要前提。含22项条目清单和流程图的CONSORT（Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials）声明旨在通过改进RCT的报告来解决这一问题。然而,《CONSORT声明》中没有专门论及那些适用于非药物治疗（如手术、技术干预、仪器设备、康复理疗、心理治疗和行为干预等）临床试验的具体问题。此外,相当多的证据表明非药物临床试验的报告仍然需要改进,因此CONSORT小组针对评估非药物治疗的临床INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS试验制定了《CONSORT扩展声明》。为制定《CONSORT扩展声明》以规范非药物临床试验的报告,33名专家于2006年2月在法国巴黎组织召开了讨论会议,并就此达成了共识。与会者扩充了原有《CONSORT声明》中的11项条目,新增了1项条目,修改并重新制定了报告流程图。 为便于充分理解和执行《CONSORT扩展声明》,CONSORT小组通过对文献的回顾编制了这一说明与详述文本,旨在为正确报告非药物临床试验提供范例。本扩展声明,连同《CONSORT声明》以及《CONSORT声明》的其他扩展本,将有助于改进非药物治疗领域RCT的报告。     

应用CONSORT声明对随机对照试验报告的质量分析

目的应用CONSORT 2010声明评价随机对照试验(RCT)论文的质量。方法组建并培训熟悉CON-SORT 2010声明和视觉模拟(VAS)评分的工作小组,针对论文"促性腺激素释放激素激动剂联合反向添加疗法治疗子宫内膜异位症的临床疗效研究",用CONSORT 2010声明清单的25个条目逐一对照和点评,并对各条目的报告质量给予VAS评分,经过统计学分析之后对论文的整体质量进行评价。结果被评价论文有15个条目提及了完整性和准确性程度不等的内容;对于全文25个条目的报告:VAS得分95分2条、90分4条、80分2条、75分2条、60分2条、45分2条、23分1条、0分10条;每个条目平均VAS评分为(43.7±40.0)分,其中VAS评分在80分以上的有8条,占32%;被评价论文有10个条目未报告,占40%。结论被评价论文报告的质量不高。建议我国RCT的报告仍需规范,报告质量有待提高,尤其是与试验设计原则有关的报告质量;撰稿人报告RCT与审稿人面对RCT论文时均应参照CONSORT声明;编辑部可酌情把CONSORT声明逐步引入稿约;建议用CONSORT声明对照撰写RCT。     

更好地报告针刺临床试验中的干预措施

“针刺临床试验干预措施报告的标准”(STandardsfor Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials ofAcupuncture,STRICTA)为作者报告针刺临床试验提供指南。STRICTA旨在帮助临床试验的作者明晰地报告针刺临床试验中所提供的治疗的特定组成部分。我们需要从已发表的试验报告中得到有关干预措施的完整、准确而又透明的信息,从而更好地解释并严格评价其研究结果。CONSORT(Consolidated Standards of ReportingTrials,临床试验报告的统一标准)工作组已着手应对发表的临床试验报告质量低下的问题。CONSORT声明于1996年首次发表[1],之后于2001年[2]和2010年[3]作了修订,该声明为提高平行对照随机临床试验的报告质量制定了指南。最近的修订版即CONSORT2010,包括一份含25项条目的对照检查清单和一张流程图,以及对全部条目的解释和良好报告的实例[3,4]。清单中的条目5涉及干预措施的报告质量。在西医领域中,临床试验干预措施的报告存在诸多问题并已引起注意。有一项研究对这类临床试验报告作了仔细审读,发现...     

针刺临床试验干预措施报告标准的修订:CONSORT声明的扩展

"针刺临床试验干预措施报告标准"(STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture,STRICTA)于2001年和2002年在5种期刊上发表。该指南以对照检查清单及解释的形式供作者和期刊编辑使用,旨在提高针刺临床试验报告的质量,尤其是对其中干预措施的报告,因而有助于对这些试验的解释和重复。随后对STRICTA的应用及影响的述评都强调了STRICTA的价值,也提出了改进和修订的建议。为使修订过程顺利进行,STRICTA工作组、CONSORT工作组和中国Cochrane中心于2008年开始合作。召集成立的有47名成员的专家组对清单的修改稿提出了电子版反馈意见。在后来于弗莱堡(Freiburg)召开的见面会上,由21名专家组成的工作组进一步修订了STRICTA对照检查清单,并计划如何对其进行发布。新的STRICTA对照检查清单作为CONSORT的正式扩展版,包含6项条目及17条二级条目。这些条目为报告针刺治疗的合理性、针刺的细节、治疗方案、其他干预措施、治疗师的背景以及对照或对照干预提供了指南。而且,作为修订工作的一部分,...     

改进中药临床试验报告的参考条目

为改进中药临床试验报告质量，本文在《草药随机对照临床试验的报告：CONSORT声明细则》的基础上，结合中医药的特点，制定了中药临床试验报告的参考条目。本条目沿用了草药CONSORT声明的22项要求，对其中11项的部分内容根据中医药特点进行了细化和增减，并根据中成药和汤药两大类临床试验的特点，争别对参考条目进行细化；最目突出了受试者（participant）、干预措施（intervention）、对照（control）和结局（outcome）四个方面的内容。制定中药临床武验报告的参考条目旨在提高中药临床试验报告的质量，并为杂志编辑和审稿人员提供参考。     

布地奈德辅助治疗小儿肺炎随机对照试验报告摘要质量评价

目的：评价布地奈德辅助治疗小儿肺炎随机对照试验（RCTs）报告摘要质量及分析其影响因素。方法：采用CONSORT 2010申明的临床报告摘要质量评价系统,对中文发表的布地奈德雾化吸入辅助治疗小儿肺炎的RCTs文献摘要进行评价,采用RevMan 5.3软件进行统计学分析。结果：纳入的282篇RCTs摘要报告率低的条目有：“题目判定为随机”“通讯作者”“随机化”“盲法”“随机分组例数” “资助”,且所有文献均无“试验注册”,分层分析中摘要字数对条目报告的影响最大。结论：布地奈德治疗小儿肺炎的RCTs摘要质量与CONSORT 2010申明的临床报告摘要质量存在较大差距,研究人员在今后的文章中应使用CONSORT 规定的条目进行书写以提高摘要质量,增强可读性。     

中医手法治疗颈型颈椎病随机对照试验的质量评价研究

背景 中医手法是治疗颈型颈椎病的重要手段。随着研究的不断发展，大量中医手法治疗颈型颈椎病的随机对照试验已经发表，但质量水平参差不齐，限制了中医手法的推广和高质量临床证据的产生。 目的 评价目前中医手法治疗颈型颈椎病随机对照试验的文献质量。 方法 计算机检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、维普网、中国生物医学文献服务系统、PubMed、Embase和Cochrane Library数据库中手法治疗颈型颈椎病的随机对照试验，检索时限为建库至2021年6月。由2名研究者完成文献筛选和资料提取。采用物理治疗证据数据库（PEDro）量表、Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具、临床试验报告标准（CONSORT）声明2010版及附加指标评价纳入文献的质量。 结果 共纳入81篇文献，其中2006—2014年共发表文献28篇，年平均发表3.11篇；2015—2021年共发表文献53篇，年平均发表7.57篇。文献质量评价结果显示，PEDro量表总分≥7分的高质量文献仅7篇（8.6%）。Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具显示，高偏倚风险文献所占比例最少，低偏倚风险文献次之，大部分条目因为报告信息不全，评分偏倚风险不确定。CONSORT声明2010版评价结果显示，纳入文献的文题和摘要、方法、结果、讨论、其他信息部分报告率不足。附加指标中采用多中心、伦理审批、干预措施质量控制、志谢报告率低。 结论 目前中医手法治疗颈型颈椎病随机对照试验的文献质量普遍偏低，建议今后研究者参照PEDro量表、Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具、CONSORT声明对中医手法治疗颈型颈椎病的随机对照试验进行规范性报告。     

中文肿瘤学干预类Meta分析论文摘要报告质量评价分析

目的：以中华医学会肿瘤学期刊为例,评价中文肿瘤学干预类Meta分析摘要报告质量,并分析影响摘要报告质量的因素。方法：利用中国知网（CNKI）检索中华医学会肿瘤学期刊发表的干预类Meta分析论文,并收集论文的特征信息,将PRISMA-A声明的12个条目评价纳入论文的摘要报告质量,通过单因素和多因素分析探究影响摘要报告质量的关键因素。结果：共纳入147篇肿瘤干预类Meta分析论文,PRISMA-A的摘要评价总分平均为8.32±1.06分,有7个条目的报告率在85.00%以上,报告率最低的3个条目是关于基金（0.00%）、注册（0.00%）和偏倚风险评估方法（12.24%）的说明。摘要报告的高低质量组在来源期刊及摘要字数方面有显著差异（P<0.01）。多因素分析结果表明,摘要字数为影响报告质量的独立因素（P=0.002）。结论：中华医学会肿瘤学期刊发表的中文肿瘤干预类Meta分析摘要中,大部分信息条目的报告率较高,但对基金、注册和偏倚风险评估方法的报告率有待提高。适当增加摘要字数是改善摘要报告质量的一项有效措施。     

采用CONSORT和STRICTA评价针刺治疗更年期综合征随机对照试验报告质量

目的:探讨采用CONSORT声明和STRICTA标准评价国内针刺治疗更年期综合征临床随机对照试验质量。方法:系统检索CNKI、CBM、VIP和WANFANG 4个数据库,手工检索所有中文针灸期刊与中医药核心期刊,纳入针刺治疗更年期综合征的随机对照试验,并采用国际公认的CONSORT声明和报告针刺临床试验中干预措施的国际标准(STRICTA)进行报告质量评价。结果:共纳入37篇文献。根据CONSORT条目,纳入的文献中,12篇(32.43%)描述了研究背景;11篇(29.73%)正确描述了产生随机分配序列的方法 ;仅1篇(2.70%)描述了实施者流程;尚没有文献提及分配隐藏机制、实施及样本量的计算。根据STRICTA条目,在37篇文献中有8篇(21.62%)报道了针刺深度;16篇(43.24%)提及针刺反应;15篇(40.54%)提及针具类型;6篇(16.22%)报告了治疗师的专业技能。结论:目前针刺治疗更年期综合征的随机对照试验研究报告质量普遍不高。今后应采用CONSORT声明和STRICTA标准进行规范报告。     

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials

To comprehend the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this article incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Comment. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from 4 stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, according to each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the 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.     

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials

To comprehend the results of a randomized, controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this paper incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, for each intervention group, that are included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the 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.     

提高中草药随机对照试验的质量Ⅳ:采用修改后的CONSORT条目评价临床随机对照试验报告的质量

目的:以Cochrane图书馆中有关中草药治疗2型糖尿病系统评价中的66个临床随机对照试验为基础,分析在中草药临床随机对照试验研究报告中存在的问题,以及如何提高临床随机对照试验报告的质量。方法:文献检索2005年7月前发表于Cochrane图书馆的纳入随机对照试验最多的系统评价—中草药治疗2型糖尿病系统评价,共包含66个临床随机对照试验。以原有的CONSORT条目为基础,增加有关中医药方面的5项内容,即中医证型、组方依据、复方组成、制剂类型及质量控制。修订后的CONSORT评估表共包含63项条目,并以此为标准评估66篇临床随机对照试验报告的质量。结果:按修改后的CONSORT条目,66篇临床随机对照试验的总体报告率为19%~44%,中位数32%(标准差8%)。结论:中草药临床随机对照试验报告的总体质量较低。建议:以CONSORT条目为基础,进行中草药临床随机对照试验报告规范化的研究。同时建议中医药类杂志的编辑要求作者按照规范格式发表临床研究报告。     

Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation

CONTEXT: The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To date, a paucity of data exists regarding whether it has achieved this goal. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvement in the quality of reports of RCTs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparative before-and-after evaluation in which reports of RCTs published in 1994 (pre-CONSORT) were compared with RCT reports from the same journals published in 1998 (post-CONSORT). We included 211 reports from BMJ, JAMA, and The Lancet (journals that adopted CONSORT) as well as The New England Journal of Medicine (a journal that did not adopt CONSORT and was used as a comparator). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of CONSORT items included in a report, frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment, and overall trial quality score based on the Jadad scale, a 5-point quality assessment instrument. RESULTS: Compared with 1994, the number of CONSORT checklist items in reports of RCTs increased in all 4 journals in 1998, and this increase was statistically significant for the 3 adopter journals (pre-CONSORT, 23.4; mean change, 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-5.3). The frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment decreased for each of the 4 journals, and this change was statistically significant for adopters (pre-CONSORT, 61%; mean change, -22%; 95% CI, -38% to -6%). Similarly, 3 of the 4 journals showed an improvement in the quality score for reports of RCTs, and this increase was statistically significant for adopter journals overall (pre-CONSORT, 2.7; mean change, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8). CONCLUSION: Use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvements in the quality of reports of RCTs.     

中文发表的乳腺癌随机对照试验摘要报告质量调查

目的 评价中文发表的乳腺癌随机对照试验(RCT)摘要报告质量。 方法 运用计算机检索主要中文数据库,纳入中文发表的乳腺癌RCT,采用“摘要CONSORT”标准评价纳入RCT摘要的报告质量,使用Meta-Analyst软件进行统计分析。 结果 最终纳入符合标准的RCT 965篇,评价结果显示:乳腺癌RCT摘要中存在严重报告质量缺陷,尤其体现在“标题中判定为随机研究”(1.1%,95%CI:0.6%～2.0%)、“随机化”(3.8%,95%CI:2.8%～5.2%)、“盲法”(1.0%,95%CI:0.6%～1.9%)、“统计方法”(11.5%,95%CI:9.6%～13.7%)、“随机分组的例数”(7.5%,95%CI:6.0%～9.3%)、“招募对象”(12.2%,95%CI:10.3%～14.4%)、“试验注册信息”(13.1%,95%CI:11.1%～15.3%)和“资助来源”(8.1%,95%CI:6.5%～10.0%)8个方面。“摘要CONSORT”发布以后,可以显著提高“研究对象”“干预”“统计方法”“结局”和“结论”的报告率。比较非中国科学引文数据库(CSCD),CSCD收录RCT的摘要在“标题识别随机”“随机化”“招募对象”和“资助来源”的报告上差异有统计学意义。 结论 中文发表乳腺癌RCT摘要存在严重报告缺陷,应当引起期刊编辑和研究员的重视。      

Current situation on the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in 5 leading Chinese medical journals

Objective： The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials （CONSORT） statement has already proved to be an efficient standard for reporting quality of randomized controlled trials （RCTs）. However, most of the Chinese medical journals have not endorsed the CONSORT statement. The current situation about the reporting quality of RCTs in Chinese medical journals is still unclear. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs on papers published in 5 leading Chinese medical journals. Methods： We evaluated 232 original RCT papers using a reporting quality scale based on CONSORT statement from 2001 to 2006 in 5 Chinese medical journals （Journal type 1） without adoption of CONSORT and Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine （Journal type 2） which adopted CONSORT in 2004. We measured the inclusion of 26 items for the reporting quality scale and 6 core items of each RCT report, gave score to each item and calculated the total score obtained in each report and the proportion of reports including individual items. The reporting quality of RCT trials from 2001 to 2003 （pre-adoption period） was compared with that from 2004 to 2006 （post-adoption period）. Results： The average reporting quality of RCTs was moderate （mean score, 15.18）, and the mean score of the 6 core items was low （mean score, 1.09） in 5 leading journals. The difference in the total score and the score of the 6 core items between pre-adoption period （2001-2003） and post-adoption period （2004-2006） was statistically significant （P=0.003; P=0.000）. Interaction between journal type and period was not significant （F=0.76; P=0.383）. We concluded that the change tendency of reporting quality between Journal type 1 and 2 was not different. But as to the core items of sequence concealment and intention-to-treat analysis, the increases were greater for Journal type 2 when evaluated against Journal type 1 （P=0.038; P=0.016）. Conclusion： The reporting quality of RCT trials in 5 leading Chinese medical journals is improving. However, the lack of important items in RCT trials remains a serious problem. We recommend the endorsement of the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials statement in Chinese medical journals and the continuing education on evidence-based medicine in China.     

Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement

The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement, including a checklist and a flow diagram, was developed to help authors improve their reporting of randomized controlled trials. Its primary focus was on individually randomized trials with 2 parallel groups that assess the possible superiority of one treatment compared with another but is now being extended to other trial designs. Noninferiority and equivalence trials have methodological features that differ from superiority trials and present particular difficulties in design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. Although the rationale for such trials occurs frequently, those designed and described specifically as noninferiority or equivalence trials appear less commonly in the medical literature. The quality of reporting of those that are published is often inadequate. In this article, we present an adapted CONSORT checklist for reporting noninferiority and equivalence trials and provide illustrative examples and explanations for those items amended from the original CONSORT checklist. The intent is to improve reporting of noninferiority and equivalence trials, enabling readers to assess the validity of their results and conclusions.