CONSORT extension for the reporting of randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE): checklist with explanation and elaboration

Item 3a (modified)

CONSORT 2010 item: Description of trial design (such as parallel, factorial) including allocation ratio.

Modified CONSORT extension item: Description of trial design (such as parallel, factorial) including allocation ratio, that a cohort or routinely collected database(s) was used to conduct the trial (such as electronic health record, registry) and how the data were used within the trial (such as identification of eligible trial participants, trial outcomes).

Examples

“The Determination of the Role of Oxygen in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction (DETO2X-AMI) trial was a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, randomized, controlled trial in which routine supplemental oxygen therapy was compared with ambient air in the treatment of patients with suspected myocardial infarction who did not have hypoxemia at baseline. The trial used the national comprehensive Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) . . . for patient enrollment and data collection.”35

“PATIENT was a parallel arm, pragmatic clinical trial in which 21,752 adults were randomized to receive either UC [usual care] or 1 of 2 interventions designed to increase adherence to statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) . . . Using each region’s EMR [electronic medical record], we identified participants 40 years and older with diabetes mellitus and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD), suboptimally (<90%) adherent to a statin or ACEI/ARB during the previous 12 months, and due or overdue for a refill . . . Within each region, we randomly assigned a sample of eligible members to the 3 primary study arms (usual care and 2 intervention arms) in a 1:1:1 ratio at the study outset . . . We used the EMR to capture age, race, gender, healthcare utilization for diabetes and CVD, and BP [blood pressure] and lipid levels.”36

Explanation

According to CONSORT 2010, authors should describe the trial design (eg, parallel group, cluster randomised), conceptual framework (eg, superiority, equivalence, or non-inferiority), and allocation ratio (eg, 1:1, 2:1). Also, they should describe that one or more cohorts or routinely collected databases were used, how they were used (eg, to identify eligible participants, to deliver the intervention, to collect data including to assess outcomes), and whether their use influenced other methodological choices that might have implications for how the results of the trial are interpreted and apply to different populations. Examples include constraints on the eligibility criteria for the trial; timing between evaluating eligibility, delivery of the intervention, and assessing outcomes; and outcomes available.

Item 3b (unmodified)

Important changes to methods after trial commencement (such as eligibility criteria), with reasons (see CONSORT 2010).89

Trial methods and procedures might depend on protocols (eg, eligibility criteria, outcomes assessed of cohorts or routinely collected databases). Changes to protocols that affect aspects of trial methods, such as identification of eligible participants, outcome variables collected, or timing of outcome assessments, should be described (see also ROUTINE-1 and ROUTINE-2).

Item ROUTINE-1 (new)

Name, if applicable, and description of the cohort or routinely collected database(s) used to conduct the trial, including information on the setting (such as primary care), locations, and dates (such as periods of recruitment, follow-up, and data collection).

Examples

“Family practices in England, Scotland, or Wales were eligible for the study if they were contributing data to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). The CPRD is a large database that includes the EHRs [electronic health records] of ≈ 7% of all UK general practices from 1987 to the present.”37

“The [Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network] SPIN Cohort is a convenience sample. Eligible SPIN Cohort patients are recruited at SPIN sites (https://www.spinsclero.com/en/sites) during regular medical visits, and written informed consent is obtained. A medical data form is submitted online by the site to enrol participants. Cohort participants complete outcome measures via the internet upon enrolment and subsequently every 3 months. SPIN Cohort enrollment started in March 2014 and is ongoing.”38

Explanation

This new section covers a wider description of the cohort or routinely collected database that is different from the description of how the cohort or database was used in the trial, which is covered in section 4 (trial participants). Providing the name of the cohort or routinely collected database allows readers to identify other studies, including trials, conducted with the same cohort or database and consider if the results apply to their setting. A description of the cohort or routinely collected database, including geographical locations and clinical settings, enables readers to assess characteristics relevant to understanding the sampling frame for recruitment of participants to the trial and the potential validity of the data for the research question. The authors should provide references to any publications that have described the cohort or database methods, or characteristics of the included participants. A rationale for why the specific cohort or routinely collected database was used for the trial should be provided.

Characteristics that could influence data quality should be reported and, if applicable, include the reason for data collection (eg, clinical care, administrative purposes), and the time period and related procedures by which data are collected, among others. Information on surgical procedures, for example, might be complete and accurate for administrative data derived from physician billing because reimbursement depends on its accuracy. Associated diagnostic codes, however, might be less reliable if these codes are not essential for billing. For data collected with electronic health records in the UK, for example, data that relate to items detailed in the Quality Outcomes Framework are likely of better quality if captured after 2004.39 Any changes in cohort or routinely collected database procedures, such as frequency of data collection or items collected, could lead to changes in outcome variables in randomised controlled trials or other aspects of trial conduct and should be reported.

Item ROUTINE-2 (new)

Eligibility criteria for participants in the cohort or routinely collected database(s).

Examples

“Patients were eligible for inclusion in the cohort if they were 45 years or older; had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years; had a clinical diagnosis of mild-to-severe COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], defined as a postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) to forced vital capacity ratio of 0.7 or lower and a postbronchodilator FEV1 of at least 30%, according to Global Initiative of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) and American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society criteria (GOLD stage 1–3); and had at least one documented or self-reported exacerbation during the past 3 years, with the restriction that the last exacerbation had ended at least 4 weeks before inclusion and symptoms had returned to patients’ baseline levels. Exclusion criteria were poor mastery of the Dutch language, poor cognitive functioning, known allergy to doxycycline, pregnancy, and a life expectancy of shorter than 1 month.”40

“Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes will be extracted from routinely recorded clinical data held in the NNRD [National Neonatal Research Database]. The NNRD holds data from all infants admitted to National Health Service (NHS) neonatal units in England, Scotland and Wales (~90 000 infants annually). Contributing neonatal units are known as the UK Neonatal Collaborative. Data are extracted from point-of-care neonatal electronic health records completed by health professionals during routine clinical care. A defined data extract, the Neonatal Dataset of ~450 data items, is transmitted quarterly to the Neonatal Data Analysis Unit at Imperial College London and Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust where patient episodes across different hospitals are linked and data are cleaned (queries about discrepancies and implausible data configurations are fed back to health professionals and rectified).”41

Explanation

Because the cohort or routinely collected database serves as the sampling frame for the trial, the representativeness of the participants in the trial depends on the eligibility criteria, and a clear description of criteria for entry into the cohort or routinely collected database should be provided.29 For example, in health administrative data, having insurance (eg, Medicare in the United States) is a prerequisite for having a record in the database; a randomised controlled trial with participants recruited from the database could only be representative of people with insurance coverage.

When a cohort or routinely collected database in which eligibility fluctuates over time is used (eg, health insurance data), researchers should clearly specify how eligibility was defined and how changes in eligibility over the study period were managed. Also, changes in variable coding over time could result in differences in characteristics of participants considered eligible for enrolment in the randomised controlled trial. Therefore, coding changes relevant to characterising participants in the cohort or database, and eligibility criteria and enrolment in the randomised controlled trial, should be reported.

Item ROUTINE-3 (new)

State whether the study included person-level, institutional-level, or other data linkage across two or more databases and, if so, linkage techniques and methods used to evaluate completeness and accuracy of linkage.

Examples

[Information in main text] “Individuals on the Oregon Experiment “reservation list” (N=100 407) were probabilistically matched to individual OCHIN [Oregon Community Health Information Network] patients (N=106 692), using Link Plus software and demographic variables common to both data sets. Two researchers independently performed a case-by-case review of uncertain matches using additional demographic variables. Appendix Table 1 provides more details.”

[Information in appendix] “To identify individuals common to both the Medicaid reservation list and the OCHIN patient population, we used Link Plus software to probabilistically compare demographic variables contained in both datasets. Matching variables included first and last name, date of birth, gender, street address, city, Oregon Medicaid identification number, and preferred language. The software generates a “match score” indicating each pair’s likelihood of being a match. For pairs of uncertain match status based on match score, we conducted double clerical review by independent reviewers. We also completed several rounds of quality assurance analyses to verify the validity of our match results.”42

Explanation

When databases are linked, investigators need to select a set of variables to use for linking, determine the best method for linking the databases and develop a linking algorithm, and evaluate the accuracy of linkages between the databases.43 A description of linkage methods and the success of linkage is critical to allow the reader to assess the likelihood and potential effect of any linkage error and the possibility of related bias.44 Linkage bias occurs when associations are present between the probability of linkage error (eg, false and missing matches) and variables of interest. For example, linkage rates might vary by patient characteristics, such as health status or health services received. Even small errors in the linkage process can introduce bias and lead to results that can overestimate or underestimate the associations being studied.45

Authors should describe if linkage of records across multiple databases was conducted and, if so, the methods of linkage (eg, deterministic v probabilistic, quality and type of variables used for linkage), how linkage validation was done, and the results of linkage validation with estimated rates of successful linkage. Details should be provided on blocking variables (variables used to form pairs for comparison only among those with the potential to be matches, such as the first three digits of a postal code), completeness of linkage variables, linkage rules, thresholds, and manual review of potential matches, if undertaken.4647 If linkage was conducted before the trial for previous studies or general use, or if linkage was undertaken by an external provider, such as a data linkage centre, a reference describing the data resource and linkage methods should be provided. Authors should report linkage error with standard approaches including comparisons with gold standards or reference datasets, sensitivity analyses, and comparing characteristics of linked and unlinked data.48

Item 4a (modified)

CONSORT 2010 item: Eligibility criteria for participants.

Modified CONSORT extension item: Eligibility criteria for trial participants, including information on how to access the list of codes and algorithms used to identify eligible participants, information on accuracy and completeness of data used to ascertain eligibility, and methods used to validate accuracy and completeness (eg, monitoring, adjudication), if applicable.

Examples

“Primary care physicians were eligible for the study if they practiced in a study clinic, provided care to at least 10 adults with type 2 diabetes, and provided written informed consent to participate. Patients were classified as having diabetes if they had 2 or more out-patient diabetes International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes (250.xx) or used 1 or more diabetes-specific medications in the 1-year period before randomization. This diabetes identification method has estimated sensitivity of 0.91 and positive predictive value of 0.94.”49

“An EHR [electronic health record]-based algorithm to identify eligible patients was constructed based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revisions, Clinical Modification codes (67–69) (see Table E1 in the online supplement) that are present on admission. In addition, nurses complete a five-item electronic checklist during intake to denote the disease-specific eligibility criteria. To validate the algorithm, we reviewed 271 medical charts across the participating hospitals. The algorithm identified 171 of these patients as eligible and 100 as ineligible. Using manual chart review as the gold standard, the algorithm had a false-positive rate of 1% and a false-negative rate of 5%.”50

Explanation

This section relates to entry into the trial (rather than the cohort or routinely collected database, which is covered in items ROUTINE-1 to ROUTINE-3). When eligible trial participants were identified from records in a cohort or routinely collected database, authors should report information necessary to evaluate or replicate this process. This information should include a clear and detailed description of all codes, algorithms, and free text field entries, or combinations of these, including any statistical code if possible. Ideally, a link to all material needed for replication should be provided in an appendix or posting to an accessible website.

Use of routinely collected data could introduce some degree of misclassification bias, and information on the validity of participant classification must be specifically described, including reference to available validation studies and any methods used to directly assess the validity of the data used for classification of participants and the accuracy of the classification. Potential changes that could affect different settings and time points should be considered (eg, when coding standards or strategies that might affect the validity of the data are changed, or when software or algorithms are updated).

To help readers assess the applicability of trial results, authors should clearly describe potential differences between the trial target population, people included in the cohort or health database, and actual participants in the trial. Filtering effects could occur, for instance, when data are more often incomplete in special situations, such as emergency visits (compared with routine visits) as a result of different processes for routine data collection, and if people with incomplete data are not screened for trial eligibility.

Item 4b (unmodified)

Settings and locations where the data were collected.

Examples

“The trial was conducted in the area of the Lille-Douai Health Insurance district (Northern France) during the institutional seasonal influenza vaccination campaign of 2014–2015 . . . In the intervention group, 25 GPs received and were supposed to expose in their waiting rooms 135 pamphlets and one poster (added to the usual mandatory information) withdrawing all the other posters. In the control group, waiting rooms were kept in their usual state . . . Data were extracted between October 15, 2014 and February 28, 2015 from the SIAM-ERASME claim database of the Lille-Douai district Health Insurance Fund on patient level.”51

“The present study is one of three trials that took place in the context of the PRO-AGE (PRevention in Older people-Assessment in GEneralists’ practices) project in three locations. The present study was conducted in Hamburg, Germany, and was intended to test whether HRA-O [health risk appraisal for older persons], combined with personal reinforcement and supplemented . . . In Hamburg, general practitioners (GPs) registered in the entire metropolitan area (~500 GPs) were informed via the newsletter of their regional GP association (BDA-Landesverband Hamburg) . . . Survival, nursing home admission, and need for ambulatory nursing care as well as change of residence data were obtained from the GP records and completed with participant and proxy information. At year 1, the HRA-O questionnaire was used for collecting outcome information from all study participants. It was sent to surviving persons in combination with a short questionnaire on self-efficacy in the patient–physician interaction.”52

Explanation

Information on the settings and locations where the trial was conducted is key to judge the applicability and generalisability of the trial.89 In trials conducted in cohorts or with routinely collected data, authors should describe where the trial was implemented and specify if differences existed between centres where overall cohort or database data were collected (see item ROUTINE-2) and those involved in the trial. This situation might occur if only a subset of centres in the cohort or database are selected randomly or by characteristics, such as the quality of the data, location, delivery of healthcare, or language. Also, centres in a cohort, for instance, could be assigned to participate in different ongoing trials occurring simultaneously or in overlapping time periods with the same cohort.

Item ROUTINE-4 (new)

Describe whether and how consent was obtained.

Example

“At enrollment in the cohort, patients are asked to provide informed consent for prospective collection of clinical, survival and PROMs [patient-reported outcome measures] data . . . we ask patients’ consent to be randomly selected to receive offers on experimental interventions in the future and to use their data comparatively . . . Patients within the cohort who meet the inclusion criteria form a subcohort of eligible patients . . . From among this subcohort, a random sample is selected . . . Randomly selected patients are offered the experimental intervention (boost prior to sCRT [standardised chemoradiation therapy]) by their treating physician. If they accept the offer, they will sign an additional informed consent to receive the boost. Patients who refuse the boost will receive care as usual (that is, sCRT). Patients in the subcohort who will not be randomly selected will not be informed about the boost intervention, nor will they be informed about their participation in the control arm of this study.”53

Explanation

In trials in cohorts and with routinely collected data, informed consent might be applied at different levels and at multiple stages for an individual participant, and in different ways than in conventional randomised controlled trial designs where consent is usually obtained once for treatment, randomisation, and data use.54 Reporting the information provided to potential participants and the consent sought will help readers understand what participants knew and what they expected or hoped might happen at each stage of the research, including the trial. Clearly describing this information in the text and in flow diagrams will allow readers to evaluate the applicability of the trial results and facilitate replication.

Authors should describe the different types of consent sought and obtained for the cohort or routinely collected database, and the trial. These might include: consent for use of health data for research from a cohort or routinely collected database; consent to be contacted for future research purposes; prior consent to future randomisation without explicit notice, which often occurs in trials that use the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design1455; consent to receive a trial intervention; or conventional consent for participation in the trial and randomisation. Other types of consent could also be relevant, such as consent to no description of the experimental intervention if allocated to the control, or consent for linkage with other datasets. For each type of consent sought, authors should describe from whom consent was sought, whether consent was sought for all participants in the trial or only some (eg, only those allocated to a trial intervention), and when each type of consent was sought.

Item 5 (unmodified)

The interventions for each group with sufficient details to allow replication, including how and when they were actually given.

Example

“We developed a computer-based electronic alert system for identifying consecutive hospitalized OAC [oral-anticoagulation]-naïve patients with AF [arterial fibrillation] and tested the hypothesis that such an alert system would improve OAC prescription. The alert system automatically identified hospitalized patients with AF without an active OAC prescription in the electronic order entry system. The alert system was incorporated into the electronic medical chart and order entry system of the University Hospital in Bern, Switzerland. It recognized AF by permanently searching diagnosis lists and physician notes of the entire electronic patient chart database for free text entries of AF or its various abbreviations. Alerts were issued 24 hours after the onset of hospital stay if . . . 4 criteria for an individual patient were present . . . Once the criteria were fulfilled, the alert was issued in the electronic patient chart. The alert was visible to physicians and nurses, but only physicians were enabled to respond to the alert.”56

“Intervention included a single real-time notification by letter to the patient and by electronic message within the KPSC [Kaiser Permanente Southern California] electronic medical record system to each patient’s primary care provider and asthma specialist (if the patient had previously seen one). The patient letters and physician messages noted excessive SABA [short-acting β2-agonist] dispensing, suggestions for management, and facilitated allergy referral recommendation for those patients without prior asthma specialist care . . . Controls received KPSC standard asthma care management without research contact.”57

Explanation

Interventions are sometimes delivered by electronic health record systems or with an administrative database. Examples provided here describe a clinical decision support tool56 and a drug alert system57 embedded within electronic health records. Other examples could include reminders or links to a clinical practice guideline when specific disease codes or other patient characteristics (eg, age, sex) that indicate guideline relevance are entered into an electronic health record. Authors should report interventions triggered or delivered by an electronic health record, registry, or administrative database in enough detail so that readers can understand the characteristics of the intervention, replicate the intervention in other research, and implement the intervention clinically. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) provides guidance for reporting of interventions.58

Item 6a (modified)

CONSORT 2010 item: Completely defined pre-specified primary and secondary outcome measures, including how and when they were assessed.

Modified CONSORT extension item: Completely defined pre-specified primary and secondary outcome measures, including how and when they were ascertained and the cohort or routinely collected database(s) used to ascertain each outcome.

Examples

“A hard CVD [cardiovascular disease] event, the primary outcome, was defined as the occurrence of any of the following events in the medical record or Medicare/Medicaid data between IMPACT [Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment] enrollment date and December 31, 2008: a) fatal MI [myocardial infarction] (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes I21-I22 the first-listed cause of death), b) laboratory evidence of acute MI (creatine kinase-myocardial band isoenzyme value 93.0 ng/ml or troponin value 90.3 K g/l), c) acute MI diagnosis (ICD-9 code 410), d) fatal stroke (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes I60-I64 the first-listed cause of death), or e) hemorrhagic (ICD-9 codes 430Y432) or nonhemorrhagic (ICD-9 codes 433.01, 433.11, 433.21, 433.31, 433.91, 434.01, 434.11, and 434.91) stroke diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were fatal/nonfatal MI (categories a-c), fatal/nonfatal MI-cardiac enzyme confirmed (categories a and b), fatal/nonfatal stroke (categories d and e), and all-cause mortality. Death dates were extracted from the Medicare data, and causes of death were obtained from death certificates provided by the Indiana State Department of Health . . . Patients were followed up for a maximum of 7.5 to 9.5 years (median = 8.1 years); however, for cause of death (categories a and d), patients were followed up for a maximum of 5.5 to 7.5 years (median = 6.2 years).”59

“The trial used the national comprehensive Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) . . . for patient enrollment and data collection . . . The primary end point was death from any cause within 365 days after randomization, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included death from any cause within 30 days after randomization, rehospitalization with myocardial infarction, rehospitalization with heart failure, and cardiovascular death . . . as well as composites of these end points, assessed at 30 days and 365 days . . . Data on the end points of rehospitalization with heart failure and cardiovascular death are not available from SWEDEHEART and must be obtained from the Swedish National Inpatient and Outpatient Registries. Mortality data were obtained from the Swedish National Population Registry, which includes the vital status of all Swedish citizens. All other variables were obtained from SWEDEHEART, which is monitored on a regular basis. Diagnoses at discharge are listed according to codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10). The end of follow-up was December 30, 2016, which was 365 days after the last patient underwent randomization. To allow for any lag in registry reporting, the final database was extracted from SWEDEHEART on February 28, 2017, including data on any linked deaths that occurred through December 30, 2016, and reported in the population registry as of February 14, 2017 . . . No central adjudication or trial-specific patient follow-up was performed.”35

Explanation

All primary and secondary outcomes should be identified and defined, including how and when they were measured, and the cohort(s) or routinely collected database(s) used to ascertain the outcome. The use of routinely collected data might introduce some degree of misclassification. Details on the accuracy and validity of outcome data (eg, classification of participants) must be described, including reference to available validation studies and any methods used to directly assess the validity of data used as primary or secondary outcomes and the accuracy of the data collected. If different databases are used in some sites in the trial, authors should note if outcomes are determined consistently across trial sites.

Because follow-up periods might be considerably longer than recruitment periods, sometimes lasting decades, special attention should be given to potential changes that occur over time that might affect the collection, quality, and completeness of the data. Authors could consider using flow diagrams or special tables to describe these circumstances. A crucial aspect to consider and carefully report is any connection between collection of outcomes and trial arms (eg, detection bias). For example, a comparison of surgery versus non-surgical care should consider that special diagnostic procedures that are routinely done in surgical follow-up visits might not be done in the control group.

Item ROUTINE-5 (new)

Information on how to access the list of codes and algorithms used to define or derive the outcomes from the cohort or routinely collected database(s) used to conduct the trial, information on accuracy and completeness of outcome variables, and methods used to validate accuracy and completeness (eg, monitoring, adjudication), if applicable.

Example—information on how to access list of codes and algorithms used to define or derive outcomes from cohort or routinely collected database(s) used to conduct the trial

“The primary outcomes were whether or not the patient received preventive care services in the post-period: screenings for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer (fecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy); screenings for diabetes (glucose and hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]), hypertension, obesity, and smoking; lipid screening; chlamydia testing; and receipt of influenza vaccination. Codes were used based on EHR [electronic health record] Meaningful Use Stage 1 measures. These included ICD-9-CM [International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, clinical modification] diagnosis and procedure codes, Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes, Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes, and medication codes. The authors also used relevant code groupings and codes specific to the OCHIN [Oregon Community Health Information Network] EHR, used for Meaningful Use reporting and internal quality improvement initiatives. Appendix Table 2 provides detailed technical specifications and patient eligibility criteria for each measure (see https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0749379715004237-mmc1.pdf).”42

Examples—information on accuracy and completeness of outcome variables, and methods used to validate accuracy and completeness (eg, monitoring, adjudication)

[In supplement]“Uppsala Clinical Research Center provides manuals, education and technical advice, including a telephone help desk for all users of the registry. The system has error checking routines for range and consistency. Definitions are easily available when data are entered. To ensure the correctness of the data entered a monitor visits about 20 hospitals each year and compares data entered into the SWEDEHEART [Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies] with the information in the patients’ records from 30–40 randomly chosen patients in each hospital. When 637 randomly chosen computer forms from 21 hospitals containing 38 121 variables were reviewed in 2007, there was a 96.1% (range: 92.6%-97.4%) agreement.”60

“If a patient was suspected to have had a clinical end-point event (i.e., death, myocardial infarction, bleeding, or stroke), the patient’s health care records were subjected to central blinded adjudication to determine the cause of the event according to prespecified criteria.”61

Explanation

Trials using cohorts or routinely collected data might require specific codes or algorithms, such as diagnostic codes, to identify and define outcomes. An electronic health record query can be performed, for example, with a list of diagnostic codes to identify all patients who have experienced a specific adverse event. An algorithm, or sequence of steps necessary to score or grade an outcome, could also be used. To assess validity and to facilitate reproducibility, the list of codes and algorithms should be provided or linked to an external source within the text or in supplementary material, ideally with the computer code used to reproduce this step.

Cohorts and routinely collected data are often collected and entered by staff involved in routine patient care or by non-clinical staff, based on medical records, and the level of completeness varies. Also, procedures for entering data for clinical care or billing might introduce certain biases, and concerns about data completeness and accuracy could arise.62 Authors should describe data completeness in enough detail so that others can evaluate accuracy. Issues of misclassification, and any efforts to minimise misclassification, should be reported.

Outcome definitions might vary between cohorts and routinely collected data, and standards commonly used in clinical trials and data fields might be missing. The authors should describe any adjudication of outcomes, if adjudication was blinded to trial allocation, and which outcome definitions were used (eg, by referring to a separate adjudication protocol).

Item 6b (unmodified)

Any changes to trial outcomes after the trial commenced, with reasons (see CONSORT 2010).89

Item 7a (unmodified)

How sample size was determined (see CONSORT 2010).89

Item 7b (unmodified)

When applicable, explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines (see CONSORT 2010).89

Item 8a (unmodified)

Method used to generate the random allocation sequence (see CONSORT 2010).89

Item 8b (unmodified)

Type of randomisation; details of any restrictions (such as blocking and block size; see CONSORT 2010).89

Item 9 (modified)

CONSORT 2010 item: Mechanism used to implement the random allocation sequence (such as sequentially numbered containers), describing any steps taken to conceal the sequence until interventions were assigned.

Modified CONSORT extension item: Mechanism used to implement the random allocation sequence (such as embedding the random allocation sequence within the cohort or routinely collected database(s)), describing any steps taken to conceal the sequence until interventions were assigned.

Examples

“The [WithHolding Enteral feeds Around packed red cell Transfusion] WHEAT trial is a randomised controlled, unblinded, multicentre, pilot trial comparing two care pathways . . . Infants will be randomised with a 1:1 allocation ratio (using permuted blocks of variable size), stratified within neonatal unit by gestational age at birth and infant sex. Trial processes will be embedded within neonatal EPR [electronic patient record] systems and all outcome data will be extracted from data that are routinely recorded within the existing neonatal EPR systems (BadgerNet and BadgerEPR), and held in the NNRD [National Neonatal Research Database] . . . Infants will be randomised using an online secure central randomisation system which will be embedded into the existing neonatal EPR systems (BadgerNet and BadgerEPR). Randomisation will occur within the EPR to ensure allocation concealment.”41

“Randomization to be offered versus not offered, the SPIN-HAND [Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network hand exercise program] intervention will occur at the time of Cohort participants’ regular SPIN Cohort assessments. Eligible Cohort participants, based on questionnaire responses, will be randomized automatically as they complete their regular SPIN Cohort assessments using a feature in the SPIN Cohort platform, which provides immediate centralized randomization and, thus, complete allocation sequence concealment.”38

Explanation

The use of cohorts or routinely collected data to conduct trials might provide opportunities to embed automated randomisation or selection and allocation algorithms into the cohort or database system to allocate participants to trial arms. This process could be automated or software embedded within the system could communicate with an external randomisation system. If such processes are used, authors should provide enough details for readers to understand the randomisation and allocation concealment processes and to assess how they could influence internal validity.

Item 10 (unmodified)

Who generated the random allocation sequence, who enrolled participants, and who assigned participants to interventions (see CONSORT 2010).89

Item 11a (unmodified)

If done, who was blinded after assignment to interventions (eg, participants, care providers, those assessing outcomes) and how (see CONSORT 2010).89

Item 11b (unmodified)

If relevant, description of the similarity of interventions (see CONSORT 2010).89

Item 12a (unmodified)

Statistical methods to compare groups for primary and secondary outcomes (see CONSORT 2010).89

Item 12b (unmodified)

Methods for additional analyses, such as subgroup analyses and adjusted analyses (see CONSORT 2010).89