Adequate reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) is necessary to allow accurate
critical appraisal of the validity and applicability of the results. The CONSORT (Consolidated …

Context Previous studies indicate that the interpretation of trial results can be distorted by
authors of published reports. Objective To identify the nature and frequency of distorted …

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement,
published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why …

Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on
the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the …

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot
reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot …

Bias can arise because of the actions of primary study investigators or because of the
actions of review authors, or may be unavoidable due to constraints on how research can be …

Importance Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials
and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can …

Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare
evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and …

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow
users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred …

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of
reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline …