Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors
BMJ 2005; 330 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7499.1056 (Published 05 May 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:1056All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It would nice if more journals mentioned CONSORT in their
instructions to authors. However, the key thing is for peer reviewers to
be aware of CONSORT. A CONSORT-aware peer reviewer can insist (either
implicitly or expclicitly) that a trial report is CONSORT compliant
regardless of the policy of the journal. A sloppy peer reviewer might fail
to notice deviations from CONSORT even if CONSORT is in the official
"instructions to authors" (it is not difficult to find CONSORT non-compliant RCTs in journals recommending use of the CONSORT statement. )
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Sir,
Prof.Altman in his paper had unmasked a serious negligence of journal
editors in effectively implementing the CONSORT statement for reporting
randomized trials.
Randomized controlled trials(RCT) form the basis of clinical
recommendations.The CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials(1)
was obviously developed with the objective of improving the quality of
these trials which are supposed to reign the hierarchy of evidence(2).
Unfortunately most randomized controlled trials do not follow these
guidelines[especially on randomization(item 8-10),blinding(item 11)and
discussion(item 20-22)] but manage to get published even in journals with
a high impact factor.This results in poor quality medical research applied
at bedside,especially when the clinician lacks ability to critically
appraise the same.How ever when these poor quality medical research are
taken up for systematic reviews(especially COCHRANE)land up in the dust
bin before analysis but unknowingly the clinician continues to follow
these low quality papers.
The solution to this would be to grade RCTs and their respective
journals based on extent to which they satisfy CONSORT statement.This
grading system would give a true hierarchy which would enable the
clinician to identify good quality medical research.
References:
1.Altman DG,Schulz KF,Moher D for the CONSORT group.The revised
CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials:explanation and
elaboration.Ann Intern Med 2001;134:663-94.
2.Guyatt GH,Haynes RB,Jaeschke RZ,et al.Users guides to the Medical
Literature XXV.Evidence based Medicine:Principles for applying the Users
guides to patient care.JAMA 2000;284:1290-96
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
STARD like CONSORT?
I think it could be a good idea, too, to determine the extent to
which leading laboratory and medical journals have incorporated the STARD
initiative (1) into their instructions for authors.
Giuseppe Giocoli, MD (retired)
1. The STARD Initiative -- Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of
Studies on Diagnostic Accuracy http://www.consort-
statement.org/stardstatement.htm
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests