Taking advantage of unexpected WebCONSORT results
To estimate treatment effects, trials are initiated by randomising patients to the interventions under study and finish by comparing patient evolution. In order to improve the trial report, the CONSORT statement provides authors and peer reviewers with a guide of the essential items that would allow...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2016 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) |
| Repositorio: | UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:upcommons.upc.edu:2117/103249 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2117/103249 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0758-4 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Combinatorial probabilities Sampling (Statistics) Clinical trials CONSORT Peer review Research Reporting guidelines EQUATO Probabilitats Mostreig (Estadística) Classificació AMS::60 Probability theory and stochastic processes::60C05 Combinatorial probability Classificació AMS::62 Statistics::62D05 Sampling theory, sample surveys Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Matemàtiques i estadística::Probabilitat Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Matemàtiques i estadística::Estadística matemàtica::Anàlisi multivariant |
| Sumario: | To estimate treatment effects, trials are initiated by randomising patients to the interventions under study and finish by comparing patient evolution. In order to improve the trial report, the CONSORT statement provides authors and peer reviewers with a guide of the essential items that would allow research replication. Additionally, WebCONSORT aims to facilitate author reporting by providing the items from the different CONSORT extensions that are relevant to the trial being reported. WebCONSORT has been estimated to improve the proportion of reported items by 0.04 (95% CI, –0.02 to 0.10), interpreted as “no important difference”, in accordance with the scheduled desired scenario of a 0.15 effect size improvement. However, in a non-scheduled analysis, it was found that, despite clear instructions, around a third of manuscripts selected for trials by the editorial staff were not actually randomised trials. We argue that surprises benefit science, and that further research should be conducted in order to improve the performance of editorial staff. |
|---|