Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 28, 2025

A Novel Digital Platform for a Monitored Home-based Cardiac Rehabilitation Program
Published on: April 19, 2019
A Review of CONSORT Guidelines About Comparison Groups With a Focused Discussion on Implications for Rehabilitation
William M M Levack1, Julia P Engkasan, Allen W Heinemann
1From the Rehabilitation Teaching and Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand (WMML); Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (JPE); Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois (AWH); Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan "La Statale," Italy (SN); and IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy (SN).
Objective:
We examined and appraised the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement and its extension from the perspective of the reporting of comparison groups (ie, interventions or control conditions against which an experimental intervention is compared) in clinical trials on rehabilitation topics.
Design:
We downloaded the CONSORT 2010 Statement and all endorsed and unofficial extensions reported on the CONSORT and EQUATOR Web sites. We extracted all statements on the selection, design, delivery, or interpretation of data from comparison groups in clinical trials. We discussed preliminary findings during the Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodology Meeting in Kobe and then further by email before finalizing results.
Results:
We identified 23 standards reported across the CONSORT 2010 Statement and 10 extensions. Overall, these standards address many, but not all, issues related to reporting of comparison groups in rehabilitation trials.
Conclusions:
We recommend that additional standards be created for the selection of types of comparisons, choices around reporting of "usual care," reporting of intended "mechanisms of control," and reporting a rationale for the hypothesized superiority of one intervention over another when superiority trial design are used. Rehabilitation research would benefit from development of a specific checklist and guidelines to help researchers make best use of existing extensions.
More Related Videos
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs