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.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/340/bmj.c869.full.pdf

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

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence now indicates that the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) is less than optimal. Recent methodologic analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which boast the elimination of systematic error as their primary hallmark. Systematic error in RCTs reflects poor science, and poor science threatens proper ethical standards. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. 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 adopted the CONSORT statement. The CONSORT statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs by providing guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of their trials. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For most items, at least one published example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies are provided. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT statement, this explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated Web site (http://www.consort -statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomized trials.

/pdf/the-revised-consort-statement-for-reporting-randomized-5bhphpspur.pdf

The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration

To comprehend the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this article incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Comment. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from 4 stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, according to each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/193759/JSC00437.pdf

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials.

To comprehend the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis and interpretation. That goal can only be achieved through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this paper incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement.

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~albest/Guidance/CONSORTjama.pdf

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials

Objective To provide a comprehensive survey of the content and quality of intervention studies relevant to the treatment of schizophrenia. Design Data were extracted from 2000 trials on the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group9s register. Main outcome measures Type and date of publication, country of origin, language, size of study, treatment setting, participant group, interventions, outcomes, and quality of study. Results Hospital based drug trials undertaken in the United States were dominant in the sample (54%). Generally, studies were short (54% Conclusions Half a century of studies of limited quality, duration, and clinical utility leave much scope for well planned, conducted, and reported trials. The drug regulatory authorities should stipulate that the results of both explanatory and pragmatic trials are necessary before a compound is given a licence for everyday use.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/317/7167/1181.full.pdf

Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years.

Background
Chlorpromazine, formulated in the 1950s, remains a benchmark treatment for people with schizophrenia.

Objectives
To evaluate the effects of chlorpromazine for schizophrenia in comparison with placebo.

Search strategy
We updated previous searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (October 1999), Biological Abstracts (1982-1995), the Cochrane Library (1999, Issue 2), EMBASE (1980-1995), MEDLINE (1966-1995) and PsycLIT (1974-1995), by searching Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (June 2002). References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials were contacted.

Selection criteria
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chlorpromazine with placebo relevant to people with schizophrenia, and non-affective serious/chronic mental illness irrespective of mode of diagnosis. Primary outcomes of interest were death, violent behaviours, overall improvement, relapse and satisfaction with care.

Data collection and analysis
Citations and, where possible, abstracts were inspected independently by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were extracted by BT and JR. CA and GA independently checked a 10% sample for reliability. Dichotomous data were analysed using random effects relative risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this was estimated. Where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm statistics (NNH) were calculated. Continuous data were excluded if more than 50% of people were lost to follow up, but, where possible, weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated.

Main results
Over 1000 electronic records were inspected. The review currently mentions 302 papers in its Excluded Studies table and 50 studies in its Included Studies table. Four papers are awaiting translation.

Chlorpromazine reduces relapse over six months to two years (n=512, 3 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.5 to 0.9, NNT 3 CI 2.5 to 4) and promotes a global improvement in a person's symptoms and functioning (n=1121, 13 RCTs, RR no change/not improved 0.76 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 7 CI 5 to 10) although the placebo response is also considerable. Fewer people allocated to chlorpromazine leave trials early (n=1755, 25 RCTs, RR 0.77 CI 0.6 to 1.1) but the difference is not statistically significant. There are many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is clearly sedating (n=1404, 19 RCTs, RR 2.65 CI 1.9 to 3.7, NNH 5 CI 4 to 6), it increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders (n=942, 5 RCTs, RR 3.38 CI 1.4 to 8.0, NNH 22 CI 15 to 46), parkinsonism (n=1265, 12 RCTs, RR 2.56 CI 1.2 to 5.4, NNH 10 CI 8 to 16) and, perhaps, fits (n=695, 3 RCTs, RR 2.41 CI 0.4 to 16). Amongst other things it clearly causes a lowering of blood pressure with accompanying dizziness (n=1394, 16 RCTs, RR 2.10 CI 1.5 to 2.8, NNH 10 CI 8 to 15) and considerable increases in weight (n=165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.44 CI 2.1 to 9, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5).

Authors' conclusions
This review will confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know, but provides quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.

/pdf/chlorpromazine-versus-placebo-for-schizophrenia-at0dpfvtcb.pdf

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

Chlorpromazine (CPZ) remains one of the most common drugs used for people with schizophrenia worldwide, and a benchmark against which other treatments can be evaluated. Quantitative reviews are rare; this one evaluates the effects of chlorpromazine in the treatment of schizophrenia in comparison with placebo. We sought all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing chlorpromazine to placebo by electronic and reference searching, and by contacting trial authors and the pharmaceutical industry. Data were extracted from selected trials and, where possible, synthesised and random effects relative risk (RR), the number needed to treat (NNT) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Fifty RCTs from 1955–2000 were included with 5276 people randomised to CPZ or placebo. They constitute 2008 person-years spent in trials. Meta-analysis of these trials showed that chlorpromazine promotes a global improvement (n = 1121, 13 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 7 CI 5 to 10), although a considerable placebo response is also seen. People allocated to chlorpromazine tended not to leave trials early in both the short (n = 945, 16 RCTs, RR 0.74 CI 0.5 to 1.1) and medium term (n = 1861, 25 RCTs, RR 0.79 CI 0.6 to 1.1). There were, however, many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is sedating (n = 1242, 18 RCTs, RR 2.3 CI 1.7 to 3.1, NNH 6 CI 5 to 8), increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders, Parkinsonism and causes low blood pressure with dizziness and dry mouth. It is understandable why the World Health Organization (WHO) have endorsed and included chlorpromazine in their list of essential drugs for use in schizophrenia. Low- and middle-income countries may have more complete evidence upon which to base their practice compared with richer nations using recent innovations.

/pdf/chlorpromazine-for-schizophrenia-a-cochrane-systematic-j8tkuvrg6q.pdf

Ben Thornley

Papers

Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years.

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

Chlorpromazine for schizophrenia: a Cochrane systematic review of 50 years of randomised controlled trials

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for the treatment of schizophrenia: A symstematic review

Are UK consultants interested in pragmatic trials for those with schizophrenia