Frequently Asked Questions
How to cite CONSORT
In your methods section, state which guideline resources you used to write your article, refer readers to the supplementary materials to view your completed checklist, and cite this reporting guideline. For example:
We used the CONSORT writing guide when drafting this article, and the CONSORT checklist (see supplementary materials A) to demonstrate adherence to the CONSORT reporting guideline. [1].
You can use your reference manager to save citation information for this webpage, or copy the BibTeX below.
Who made CONSORT?
Sally Hopewell, An-Wen Chan, Gary S Collins, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, David Moher, Kenneth F Schulz, Ruth Tunn, Rakesh Aggarwal, Michael Berkwits, Jesse A Berlin, Nita Bhandari, Nancy J Butcher, Marion K Campbell, Runcie C W Chidebe, Diana Elbourne, Andrew Farmer, Dean A Fergusson, Robert M Golub, Steven N Goodman, Tammy C Hoffmann, John P A Ioannidis, Brennan C Kahan, Rachel L Knowles, Sarah E Lamb, Steff Lewis, Elizabeth Loder, Martin Offringa, Philippe Ravaud, Dawn P Richards, Frank W Rockhold, David L Schriger, Nandi L Siegfried, Sophie Staniszewska, Rod S Taylor, Lehana Thabane, David Torgerson, Sunita Vohra, Ian R White, Isabelle Boutron
See the CONSORT development article for details on its authors.
How was CONSORT made?
See the CONSORT development article for details on how this guideline was originally developed.
The UK EQUATOR Centre then worked with CONSORT’s authors to make CONSORT easier to use by clarifying language, adding definitions, examples, extra information and resources. Although worded differently, the guidance on this website is conceptually the same as the original publication and can be used interchangeably.
Does CONSORT prescribe structure?
No. CONSORT does not prescribe a rigid format or standardized content. Consider each item and prioritize elements that are most relevant to your study, findings, context, and readers.
You may prefer to report an item in a different order, section, or in a table or figure. For example, some authors may prefer to include some methods items in their Results section. Others may call their Results section Findings, or have a completely different manuscript structure.
How to prioritize items and keep writing concise
Although all items should be reported, you should prioritize items most relevant to your study, findings, context, and readership.
You should include information in the article body when possible so it’s easy for readers to find. However, if you are worried about word counts or brevity, consider placing information in tables.
If you feel confident that an item is less important to your study, you could report it in an appendix or supplement. Be aware that supplementary materials may not be peer reviewed, are not indexed by search engines, and can be difficult for readers to find. Therefore, they are best only used for details you feel are less important, and you should point readers to them from the article body. For example, “For more details, see the supplementary materials A”.
The UK EQUATOR centre runs training on how to write concisely.
What to write if you feel an item is not applicable
If you think an item is not applicable, state why. You could state this in the text or in the reporting checklist. Remember to publish your completed reporting checklist as a supplement, and to refer authors to it from your methods section.
What to do if asked to remove guideline related content
If a colleague or reviewer asks you to remove content that is related to this guideline, you can direct them to this guideline and the explanation for why that item is important. If they insist, consider moving the item to a supplement, table or figure.
Where can I get general writing training?
The EQUATOR Network provides in-person training for writing research articles.
AuthorAID have resources, an online course, and mentoring to help authors.
Reuse
Citation
@article{hopewellCONSORT2025Statement2025a,
author = {Hopewell, Sally and Chan, An-Wen and Collins, Gary S and
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn and Moher, David and Schulz, Kenneth F and
Tunn, Ruth and Aggarwal, Rakesh and Berkwits, Michael and Berlin,
Jesse A and Bhandari, Nita and Butcher, Nancy J and Campbell, Marion
K and Chidebe, Runcie C W and Elbourne, Diana and Farmer, Andrew and
Fergusson, Dean A and Golub, Robert M and Goodman, Steven N and
Hoffmann, Tammy C and Ioannidis, John P A and Kahan, Brennan C and
Knowles, Rachel L and Lamb, Sarah E and Lewis, Steff and Loder,
Elizabeth and Offringa, Martin and Ravaud, Philippe and Richards,
Dawn P and Rockhold, Frank W and Schriger, David L and Siegfried,
Nandi L and Staniszewska, Sophie and Taylor, Rod S and Thabane,
Lehana and Torgerson, David and Vohra, Sunita and White, Ian R and
Boutron, Isabelle},
title = {CONSORT 2025 Statement: Updated Guideline for Reporting
Randomised Trials},
journal = {The BMJ},
volume = {389},
pages = {e081123},
date = {2025-04-14},
urldate = {2025-04-30},
url = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11995449/},
doi = {10.1136/bmj-2024-081123},
langid = {en},
abstract = {Background Well designed and properly executed randomised
trials are considered the most reliable evidence on the benefits of
healthcare interventions. However, there is overwhelming evidence
that the quality of reporting is not optimal. The CONSORT
(Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was designed
to improve the quality of reporting and provides a minimum set of
items to be included in a report of a randomised trial. CONSORT was
first published in 1996, then updated in 2001 and 2010. Here, we
present the updated CONSORT 2025 statement, which aims to account
for recent methodological advancements and feedback from end users.
Methods We conducted a scoping review of the literature and
developed a project-specific database of empirical and theoretical
evidence related to CONSORT, to generate a list of potential changes
to the checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations
provided by the lead authors of existing CONSORT extensions (Harms,
Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment), other related reporting
guidelines (TIDieR) and recommendations from other sources (eg,
personal communications). The list of potential changes to the
checklist was assessed in a large, international, online,
three-round Delphi survey involving 317 participants and discussed
at a two-day online expert consensus meeting of 30 invited
international experts. Results We have made substantive changes to
the CONSORT checklist. We added seven new checklist items, revised
three items, deleted one item, and integrated several items from key
CONSORT extensions. We also restructured the CONSORT checklist, with
a new section on open science. The CONSORT 2025 statement consists
of a 30-item checklist of essential items that should be included
when reporting the results of a randomised trial and a diagram for
documenting the flow of participants through the trial. To
facilitate implementation of CONSORT 2025, we have also developed an
expanded version of the CONSORT 2025 checklist, with bullet points
eliciting critical elements of each item. Conclusion Authors,
editors, reviewers, and other potential users should use CONSORT
2025 when writing and evaluating manuscripts of randomised trials to
ensure that trial reports are clear and transparent.}
}
