Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 337, a2390

Improving the Reporting of Pragmatic Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement

Affiliations

Improving the Reporting of Pragmatic Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement

Merrick Zwarenstein et al. BMJ.

Abstract

The CONSORT statement is intended to improve reporting of randomised controlled trials and focuses on minimising the risk of bias (internal validity). The applicability of a trial's results (generalisability or external validity) is also important, particularly for pragmatic trials. A pragmatic trial (a term first used in 1967 by Schwartz and Lellouch) can be broadly defined as a randomised controlled trial whose purpose is to inform decisions about practice. This extension of the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of such trials and focuses on applicability. Methods At two, two-day meetings held in Toronto in 2005 and 2008, we reviewed the CONSORT statement and its extensions, the literature on pragmatic trials and applicability, and our experiences in conducting pragmatic trials. Recommendations We recommend extending eight CONSORT checklist items for reporting of pragmatic trials: the background, participants, interventions, outcomes, sample size, blinding, participant flow, and generalisability of the findings. These extensions are presented, along with illustrative examples of reporting, and an explanation of each extension. Adherence to these reporting criteria will make it easier for decision makers to judge how applicable the results of randomised controlled trials are to their own conditions. Empirical studies are needed to ascertain the usefulness and comprehensiveness of these CONSORT checklist item extensions. In the meantime we recommend that those who support, conduct, and report pragmatic trials should use this extension of the CONSORT statement to facilitate the use of trial results in decisions about health care.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 456 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Statistics notes. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ 1999;318:1209. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ, Green L, Naylor CD, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the users’ guides to patient care. JAMA 2000;284:1290-6. - PubMed
    1. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 2005;365:1159-62. - PubMed
    1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne DG, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:663-94. - PubMed
    1. Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:493-501. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback