Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jan-Feb;19(1):13-21.
doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000411. Epub 2011 Jul 29.

Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in medical informatics: a systematic review of CONSORT adherence in RCTs on clinical decision support

K M Augestad  1 , G Berntsen, K Lassen, J G Bellika, R Wootton, R O Lindsetmo; Study Group of Research Quality in Medical Informatics and Decision Support (SQUID)
Affiliations

Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in medical informatics: a systematic review of CONSORT adherence in RCTs on clinical decision support

K M Augestad et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Introduction: The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) were published to standardize reporting and improve the quality of clinical trials. The objective of this study is to assess CONSORT adherence in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of disease specific clinical decision support (CDS).

Methods: A systematic search was conducted of the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. RCTs on CDS were assessed against CONSORT guidelines and the Jadad score.

Result: 32 of 3784 papers identified in the primary search were included in the final review. 181 702 patients and 7315 physicians participated in the selected trials. Most trials were performed in primary care (22), including 897 general practitioner offices. RCTs assessing CDS for asthma (4), diabetes (4), and hyperlipidemia (3) were the most common. Thirteen CDS systems (40%) were implemented in electronic medical records, and 14 (43%) provided automatic alerts. CONSORT and Jadad scores were generally low; the mean CONSORT score was 30.75 (95% CI 27.0 to 34.5), median score 32, range 21-38. Fourteen trials (43%) did not clearly define the study objective, and 11 studies (34%) did not include a sample size calculation. Outcome measures were adequately identified and defined in 23 (71%) trials; adverse events or side effects were not reported in 20 trials (62%). Thirteen trials (40%) were of superior quality according to the Jadad score (≥3 points). Six trials (18%) reported on long-term implementation of CDS.

Conclusion: The overall quality of reporting RCTs was low. There is a need to develop standards for reporting RCTs in medical informatics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Selection process of randomized controlled trials of disease specific clinical decision support.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001;285:1992–5 - PubMed
    1. Kassell NF, Dumont AS. Randomized controlled trials in surgery: comic opera no more? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;132:243–4 - PubMed
    1. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–12 - PubMed
    1. Consort 2010. Lancet 2010;375:1136 - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987–91 - PubMed

Publication types