[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Instrumento de Propensão à Esquizofrenia - Versão Adulto (SPI-A)

O Instrumento de Propensão a Esquizofrenia tem suas origens no conceito de sintoma básico descrito primeiramente por Gerd Huber. Sintomas básicos são distúrbios sub-clínicos sutis auto-experimentados da motivação, da tolerância ao estresse, do afeto, do pensamento, do discurso, da ação motora e da percepção, os quais são claramente distintos fenomenologicamente dos sintomas psicóticos. Eles podem estar presentes antes do primeiro episódio psicótico, entre e após episódios psicóticos, e mesmo durante os próprios episódios psicóticos. Pensava-se que eles eram a mais imediata expressão psicopatológica da alteração somática por trás do desenvolvimento da psicose – assim o termo “básico”. Sintomas básicos são fenomenologicamente diferentes dos estados mentais conhecidos pelo paciente/sujeito do que ele/ela considera seu eu “normal” e assim são claramente distinguíveis dos distúrbios sutis descritos como traços naqueles com alto risco genético. Além disso, sintomas básicos são claramente distintos fenomenologicamente dos sintomas psicóticos atenuados ou francos - empregados no critério de “risco-ultra-alto” (Ultra High Risk − UHR) para risco iminente de um primeiro episódio psicótico – já que não são necessariamente observáveis por outros, como pensamento e discurso estranhos, sintomas negativos e alteração formal do pensamento. Eles são considerados como sendo desenvolvidos no próprio sujeito, contrariamente aos distúrbios de percepção esquizotípicos e alucinações, e não afetam primariamente o conteúdo do pensamento como o fazem o pensamento mágico, as idéias de referência, a ideação paranóide e os delírios.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Completeness of reporting in randomized controlled trials of 3 vaccines: a review of adherence to the CONSORT checklist

Clear reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vaccines is important for understanding results and assessing their validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement provides guidance to help authors reporting RCTs. The objective was to assess the completeness of reporting of RCTs of vaccines based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist.

The Schizophrenia Proneness Instrument, Child and Youth version (SPI-CY): Practicability and discriminative validity

Background Basic symptom (BS) criteria have been suggested to complement ultra-high risk (UHR) criteria in the early detection of psychosis in adults and in children and adolescents. To account for potential developmental particularities and a different clustering of BS in children and adolescents, the Schizophrenia Proneness Instrument, Child and Youth version (SPI-CY) was developed. Aims The SPI-CY was evaluated for its practicability and discriminative validity. Method The SPI-CY was administered to 3 groups of children and adolescents (mean age 16; range=8–18; 61% male): 23 at-risk patients meeting UHR and/or BS criteria (AtRisk), 22 clinical controls (CC), and 19 children and adolescents from the general population (GPS) matched to AtRisk in age, gender, and education. We expected AtRisk to score highest on the SPI-CY, and GPS lowest. Results The groups differed significantly on all 4 SPI-CY subscales. Pairwise post-hoc comparisons confirmed our expectations for all subscales and, at least on a descriptive level, most items. Pairwise subscale differences indicated at least moderate group effects (r≥0.37) which were largest for Adynamia (0.52≤r≥0.70). Adynamia also performed excellent to outstanding in ROC analyses (0.813≤AUC≥0.981). Conclusion The SPI-CY could be a helpful tool for detecting and assessing BS in the psychosis spectrum in children and adolescents, by whom it was well received. Furthermore, its subscales possess good discriminative validity. However, these results require validation in a larger sample, and the psychosis-predictive ability of the subscales in different age groups, especially the role of Adynamia, will have to be explored in longitudinal studies.

[Anterior teeth esthetics with the SPI implant system]

Replacement of maxillary front teeth with a fixed, implant supported partial denture with a high laugh line is a demanding procedure. For an optimal esthetic result, no deficiency of bone or soft tissue is acceptable. Submerged implant healing has often been recommended for better predictability in esthetically demanding situations. This case report shows the rehabilitation with a fixed implant supported reconstruction in the upper front and a single implant supported crown in the premolar region. Teeth had to be extracted because of apical lesions, periodontal the gingiva. The technique of delayed, submerged implant placement in the region of 11, 21 and 22 was applied and in the region of 15 a transmucosal implant healing. With a fixed, implant supported partial denture the mucosa in the upper front was conditioned. Ten months after implantation the definitive screwed, fixed partial denture on SPI ELEMENT implants was successfully integrated. In the region 15 a single crown transversally screwed was fixed on a SPI ONE TIME implant. Radiographic data two years after implantation showed a well established periimplant crestal bone level. No prosthetic complications had occurred since the insertion of the reconstruction twelve months ago.

[The SPI implant system: clinical experience and one-year results]

The new Swiss implant system SPI became available three years ago and is used in combination with fixed and removable prosthetic reconstructions. In a pilot study the clinical procedures were evaluated and data of prosthetic complications of maintenance service were collected. 25 patients participated in the study with a total of 79 SPI implants during the time period from 2003-2004. 37 implants were located in the maxilla and 42 implants in the mandible. Two implants failed during the healing period, but no loaded implant was lost. Thus, the survival rate was 97.5% (77/79). 44 implants supported a fixed prosthesis, including nine single crowns and 33 implants were used in combination with removable partial denture. Four implants were used with ball anchor retention, 29 with bar support. The ELEMENT implant with the low implant shoulder allows very good esthetics. Prosthetic complications and maintenance service during the first year of function was comparable with other implant systems. Since the design of the abutment screws, healing caps and screwdriver was changed, the system has become easier in its application.

The CONSORT statement checklist in allergen-specific immunotherapy: a GA2LEN paper

The methodology of randomized clinical trials is essential for the critical assessment and registration of therapeutic interventions. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was developed to alleviate the problems arising from the inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials. The present article reflects on the items that we believe should be included in the CONSORT checklist in the context of conducting and reporting trials in allergen-specific immunotherapy. Only randomized, blinded (in particular blinding of patients, health care providers, and outcome assessors), placebo-controlled Phase III studies in this article. Our analysis focuses on the definition of patients' inclusion and exclusion criteria, allergen standardization, primary, secondary and exploratory outcomes, reporting of adverse events and analysis.

Active implementation strategy of CONSORT adherence by a dental specialty journal improved randomized clinical trial reporting.

OBJECTIVE To describe a novel CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) adherence strategy implemented by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO) and to report its impact on the completeness of reporting of published trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING The AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy, initiated in June 2011, involves active assessment of randomized clinical trial (RCT) reporting during the editorial process. The completeness of reporting CONSORT items was compared between trials submitted and published during the implementation period (July 2011 to September 2013) and trials published between August 2007 and July 2009. RESULTS Of the 42 RCTs submitted (July 2011 to September 2013), 23 were considered for publication and assessed for completeness of reporting, seven of which were eventually published. For all published RCTs between 2007 and 2009 (n = 20), completeness of reporting by CONSORT item ranged from 0% to 100% (Median = 40%, interquartile range = 60%). All published trials in 2011-2013, reported 33 of 37 CONSORT (sub) items. Four CONSORT 2010 checklist items remained problematic even after implementation of the adherence strategy: changes to methods (3b), changes to outcomes (6b) after the trial commenced, interim analysis (7b), and trial stopping (14b), which are typically only reported when applicable. CONCLUSION Trials published following implementation of the AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy completely reported more CONSORT items than those published or submitted previously.

The Salmonella pathogenicity island (SPI)-2 and SPI-1 type III secretion systems allow Salmonella serovar typhimurium to trigger colitis via MyD88-dependent and MyD88-independent mechanisms.

Salmonella typhimurium can colonize the gut, invade intestinal tissues, and cause enterocolitis. In vitro studies suggest different mechanisms leading to mucosal inflammation, including 1) direct modulation of proinflammatory signaling by bacterial type III effector proteins and 2) disruption or penetration of the intestinal epithelium so that penetrating bacteria or bacterial products can trigger innate immunity (i.e., TLR signaling). We studied these mechanisms in vivo using streptomycin-pretreated wild-type and knockout mice including MyD88(-/-) animals lacking an adaptor molecule required for signaling via most TLRs. The Salmonella SPI-1 and the SPI-2 type III secretion systems (TTSS) contributed to inflammation. Mutants that retain only a functional SPI-1 (M556; sseD::aphT) or a SPI-2 TTSS (SB161; DeltainvG) caused attenuated colitis, which reflected distinct aspects of the colitis caused by wild-type S. typhimurium: M556 caused diffuse cecal inflammation that did not require MyD88 signaling. In contrast, SB161 induced focal mucosal inflammation requiring MyD88. M556 but not SB161 was found in intestinal epithelial cells. In the lamina propria, M556 and SB161 appeared to reside in different leukocyte cell populations as indicated by differential CD11c staining. Only the SPI-2-dependent inflammatory pathway required aroA-dependent intracellular growth. Thus, S. typhimurium can use two independent mechanisms to elicit colitis in vivo: SPI-1-dependent and MyD88-independent signaling to epithelial cells and SPI-2-dependent intracellular proliferation in the lamina propria triggering MyD88-dependent innate immune responses.

The CONSORT Statement: Application within and adaptations for orthodontic trials

High-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are an integral part of evidence-based medicine. RCTs are the bricks and mortar of high-quality systematic reviews, which are important determinants of health care policy and clinical practice. For published research to be used most effectively, investigators and authors should follow the guidelines for accurate and transparent reporting of RCTs. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement and its extensions are among the most widely used reporting guidelines in biomedical research. CONSORT was adopted by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics in 2004. Since 2011, this Journal has been actively implementing compliance with the CONSORT reporting guidelines. The objective of this explanatory article is to highlight the relevance and implications of the various CONSORT items to help authors to achieve CONSORT compliance in their research submissions of RCTs to this and other orthodontic journals.