Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
"In order to report this randomized controlled trial (RCT) according to international standards, we followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) (Moher et al., 2012). Participants provided informed consent, and the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A high percentage of patients relapse within months following an attempt to quit smoking. For this reason, greater understanding of the determinants of successful smoking cessation is needed. The present study assessed the effect of Contingency Management (CM) combined with Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment (CBT) on certain in-treatment behaviors (treatment retention, in-treatment smoking abstinence, and weekly decrease of cotinine levels) and examined the effects of these in-treatment behaviors on smoking status at a 6-month follow-up. A total of 154 treatment-seeking patients in a community setting were randomly assigned to a CBT, CBT plus CM for Abstinence (CMA) or to a CBT plus CM for Shaping cessation (CMS) group. Both CBT + CM procedures improved the in-treatment behaviors compared to CBT alone. These in-treatment behaviors (particularly in-treatment smoking abstinence) were associated with long-term abstinence. The effect of CM on in-treatment behaviors may partially explain the positive long-term outcomes of this procedure. Our findings extend previous knowledge about the effect of CM on smoking behavior.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 06/2015; 12. DOI:10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.05.003 · 2.79 Impact Factor
"The trial was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. This article contains the full reporting of the study and follows the CONSORT guidelines  . "
"Apiaries were randomly chosen following stratified randomization procedures (computerized random numbers ) (Moher et al. 2010). A total of 62 apiaries (n =3735; 95 % confidence level; precision=10.5 "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The treatment against Varroa destructor has become a basic tool in beekeeping practices, mainly during autumn. The treatment effectiveness should be improved by identifying variables affecting the final outcome. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with the treatment outcome achieved during autumn control of Varroa destructor. The mite infestation after treatment was evaluated in 62 apiaries and data regarding management practices were collected by means of a questionnaire. A mixed-effects model was constructed to associate management variables with the risk of treatment failure occurrence. Colonies with high mite levels prior to treatment (P = 0.002) and owned by beekeepers who did not frequently replace queens (P = 0.001) were associated with a higher risk of treatment failure. Other beekeeping practices indirectly improved treatment effectiveness. An integrated strategy for controlling mites that includes chemotherapy and suitable beekeepers management is needed to keep mite populations low during winter.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.