Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Das CONSORT-Statement

Empfehlungen zur Berichterstattung über randomisierte klinische Studien

  • Standorte
  • Published:
Medizinische Klinik Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized controlled trial: survey of 71 “negative” trials. N Engl J Med 1978; 299:690–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994;272:122–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994;272:1926–31. Correction: JAMA 1995;273:776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Call for comments on a proposal to improve reporting of clinical trials in the biomedical literature: a position paper. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:894–5.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rennie D. Reporting randomized controlled trials: an expertment and a call for responses from readers. JAMA 1995;273:1054–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Williams JW Jr, Holleman DR Jr, Samsa GP, Simel DL. Randomized controlled trials of 3 vs 10 days of trimethoprim/ suifamethoxazole for acute maxillary sinusitis. JAMA 1995;273:1015–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. Br Med J 1994;309:1286–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appreisal of the Medical Literature. Aproposal for more informative abstracts of clinicsi studies. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:598–604.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, Boon H, Hiersich AL, Einarson TR. Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articies in the British, Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. Can Med Assoc J 1994;150:1611–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer’s guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:78–84.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Godfrey K. Statistics in practice: comparing the means of several groups. N Engl J Med 1985;313:1450–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gardner MJ, Bond J. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. JAMA 1990;263:1355–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee YJ, Ellenberg JH, Hirtz DG, Nelson KB. Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option? Stat Med 1991;10:1595–605.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pocock SJ. When to stop a clinical trial. Br Med J 1992; 305:235–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Donner A, Brown KS, Brasher P. A methodological review of nontherapeutic intervention trials employing cluster randomization, 1979–1989. Int J Epidemiol 1990; 19:795–800.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 1994;272:125–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schulz KF, Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;274:1456–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schulz KF, Grimes DA, Altman DG, Hayes RJ Blinding and exclusion after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. Br Med J 1996;312:742–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Karlowski TR, Chalmers TC, Frenkel LD, Kapikian AZ, Lewis TL, Lynch JM. Ascorbic acid for the common cold: a prophylactic and therapeutic trial. JAMA 1975;231: 1038–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pocock SJ. Clinical trials: A practical approach. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1983:182–6.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bailar JC, Mosteller F. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articies for medical journals. Ann Intern Med 1988; 108:266–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gardner MJ, Altmann DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J 1986;292:746–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Evans M, Pollock AV. Trials on trial: a review of trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. Arch Surg 1984;119:109–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gardner MJ, Machin D, Campbell MJ. Use of check lists in assessing the statistical content of medical studies. In: Gardner MJ, Altman DG, eds. Statistics with confidence— Confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. London, England: Br Med J 1989;101–8.

  26. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Clinical rsearch in general medical journals: a 30-year perspective. N Engl J Med 1979;301:180–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research: we need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons. Br Med J, 1994;308:283–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Altman DG, Dore C. Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet 1990;335:149–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statstical problems in the reporting of clinical trials: a survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med 1987;317:426–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Gotzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:31–56 Correction: Control Clin Trials 1989;10:356

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wuppertal

    J. Köbberling

  2. Universität Ulm (Übersetzer), Ulm, Deutschland

    Wilhelm Gaus & Franz Porzsolt

Authors
  1. J. Köbberling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wilhelm Gaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Franz Porzsolt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Köbberling, J., Gaus, W. & Porzsolt, F. Das CONSORT-Statement. Med. Klin. 92, 675–679 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03044824

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03044824

Search

Navigation