{"title":"CONSORT 2010 extension: setting standards for reporting cluster randomised crossover trials","authors":"Joanne E McKenzie","doi":"10.1136/bmj.r637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Extending the CONSORT 2010 statement for reporting cluster randomised crossover trials lays the foundation for improving the completeness and accuracy of reporting Over the past two decades my research has centred on systematic reviews. Developing and evaluating statistical and research methodology for reviews has been a focus, but I have also collaborated on many reviews. These collaborations inevitably reveal the importance of complete, clear, and accurate reporting of primary studies. At best, incomplete and inaccurate reporting wastes research investment—often substantial in the case of large randomised trials—and at worst, it may lead to incorrect conclusions with far reaching consequences. Primary studies that are reported well contribute maximally to the evidence base and can be fairly assessed. The opposite is true when reporting is unclear or incomplete. I have spent countless hours scouring trial reports for information that should be present but is not; trying to decipher unclear text; or trying to decide what to do when the information reported is inconsistent within or across reports of the same study. This time adds up and …","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":"183 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r637","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Extending the CONSORT 2010 statement for reporting cluster randomised crossover trials lays the foundation for improving the completeness and accuracy of reporting Over the past two decades my research has centred on systematic reviews. Developing and evaluating statistical and research methodology for reviews has been a focus, but I have also collaborated on many reviews. These collaborations inevitably reveal the importance of complete, clear, and accurate reporting of primary studies. At best, incomplete and inaccurate reporting wastes research investment—often substantial in the case of large randomised trials—and at worst, it may lead to incorrect conclusions with far reaching consequences. Primary studies that are reported well contribute maximally to the evidence base and can be fairly assessed. The opposite is true when reporting is unclear or incomplete. I have spent countless hours scouring trial reports for information that should be present but is not; trying to decipher unclear text; or trying to decide what to do when the information reported is inconsistent within or across reports of the same study. This time adds up and …