[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.

Preventing vasospasm improves outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: rationale and design of CONSCIOUS-2 and CONSCIOUS-3 trials

Cerebral vasospasm after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is a frequent but unpredictable complication associated with poor outcome. Current vasospasm therapies are suboptimal; new therapies are needed. Clazosentan, an endothelin receptor antagonist, has shown promise in phase 2 studies, and two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (CONSCIOUS-2 and CONSCIOUS-3) are underway to further investigate its impact on vasospasm-related outcome after aSAH. Here, we describe the design of these studies, which was challenging with respect to defining endpoints and standardizing endpoint interpretation and patient care. Main inclusion criteria are: age 18-75 years; SAH due to ruptured saccular aneurysm secured by surgical clipping (CONSCIOUS-2) or endovascular coiling (CONSCIOUS-3); substantial subarachnoid clot; and World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies grades I-IV prior to aneurysm-securing procedure. In CONSCIOUS-2, patients are randomized 2:1 to clazosentan (5 mg/h) or placebo. In CONSCIOUS-3, patients are randomized 1:1:1 to clazosentan 5, 15 mg/h, or placebo. Treatment is initiated within 56 h of aSAH and continued until 14 days after aSAH. Primary endpoint is a composite of mortality and vasospasm-related morbidity within 6 weeks of aSAH (all-cause mortality, vasospasm-related new cerebral infarction, vasospasm-related delayed ischemic neurological deficit, neurological signs or symptoms in the presence of angiographic vasospasm leading to rescue therapy initiation). Main secondary endpoint is extended Glasgow Outcome Scale at week 12. A critical events committee assesses all data centrally to ensure consistency in interpretation, and patient management guidelines are used to standardize care. Results are expected at the end of 2010 and 2011 for CONSCIOUS-2 and CONSCIOUS-3, respectively.

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.

Water harvesting: guidelines to good practice

These guidelines provide an overview of proven good practice in water harvesting from all over the world. They form a practical reference guide while providing support and specific technical expertise for the integration of water harvesting technologies into the planning and design of projects. Thus existing information and experience is strengthened. On a broader scale, the guidelines’ objective is to facilitate, share and upscale good practice in water harvesting given the state of current knowledge. Targeted end users include local and regional planners / advisors, rural development consultants, rainwater harvesting networks and communitiesof- practice, project managers, extension agents and other implementing staff. Through informing these professionals, the aim is to stimulate discussion and new thinking about improved water management in general, and water harvesting in particular, within rainfed agriculture, particularly in the drylands. The ultimate goal is to contribute to lifting 80 million rural people out of poverty by 2015: water security is a prerequisite to achieve food security for these people.

Recommendations for sex/gender neuroimaging research: Key principles and implications for research design, analysis and interpretation

Neuroimaging (NI) technologies are having increasing impact in the study of complex cognitive and social processes. In this emerging field of social cognitive neuroscience, a central goal should be to increase the understanding of the interaction between the neurobiology of the individual and the environment in which humans develop and function. The study of sex/gender is often a focus for NI research, and may be motivated by a desire to better understand general developmental principles, mental health problems that show female-male disparities, and gendered differences in society. In order to ensure the maximum possible contribution of NI research to these goals, we draw attention to four key principles—overlap, mosaicism, contingency and entanglement—that have emerged from sex/gender research and that should inform NI research design, analysis and interpretation. We discuss the implications of these principles in the form of constructive guidelines and suggestions for researchers, editors, reviewers and science communicators.

Refinement of experimental design and conduct in laboratory animal research.

The scientific literature of laboratory animal research is replete with papers reporting poor reproducibility of results as well as failure to translate results to clinical trials in humans. This may stem in part from poor experimental design and conduct of animal experiments. Despite widespread recognition of these problems and implementation of guidelines to attenuate them, a review of the literature suggests that experimental design and conduct of laboratory animal research are still in need of refinement. This paper will review and discuss possible sources of biases, highlight advantages and limitations of strategies proposed to alleviate them, and provide a conceptual framework for improving the reproducibility of laboratory animal research.

A review of antithrombotic therapy and the rationale and design of the randomized edoxaban in patients with peripheral artery disease (ePAD) trial adding edoxaban or clopidogrel to aspirin after femoropopliteal endovascular intervention.

Compared with the coronary setting, knowledge about antithrombotic therapies after endovascular treatment (EVT) is inadequate in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Based on a review of trials and guidelines, which is summarized in this article, there is scant evidence that antithrombotic drugs improve outcome after peripheral EVT. To address this knowledge gap, the randomized, open-label, multinational edoxaban in patients with Peripheral Artery Disease (ePAD) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01802775) was designed to explore the safety and efficacy of a combined regimen of antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and anticoagulation with edoxaban, a selective and direct factor Xa inhibitor, both combined with aspirin. As of July 2014, 203 patients (144 men; mean age 67 years) from 7 countries have been enrolled. These patients have been allocated to once-daily edoxaban [60 mg for 3 months (or 30 mg in the presence of factors associated with increased exposure)] or clopidogrel (75 mg/d for 3 months). All patients received aspirin (100 mg/d) for the 6-month duration of the study. The primary safety endpoint is major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding; the primary efficacy endpoint is restenosis or reocclusion at the treated segment(s) measured at 1, 3, and 6 months using duplex ultrasound scanning. All outcomes will be assessed and adjudicated centrally in a masked fashion. The ePAD study is the first of its kind to investigate a combined regimen of antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation through factor Xa inhibition with edoxaban.