Randomised controlled trial of magnetic-resonance pelvimetry in breech presentation at term

Loon, AJ van; Mantingh, A.; Serlier, EK; Kroon, Gerardus; Mooyaart, E. L.; Huisjes, H.J.

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)05431-7

Cited by 90 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…She had an abnormal pelvic measurement and was scheduled for elective caesarean section. However, the attending obstetrician judged a trial of labour acceptable; caesarean section was done when there was no progress in the first stage of labour'' [197].…”

Section: Item 13b For Each Group Losses and Exclusions After Randommentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Moher

Hopewell

Schulz

et al. 2010

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

1,828

1,374

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Item 13b For Each Group Losses and Exclusions After Randommentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Moher

Hopewell

Schulz

et al. 2010

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

1,828

1,374

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dans le bras radiopelvimétrie, le taux global de césariennes a été de cation du seul essai randomisé correctement conçu pour répon-dre à la question de la valeur de la pelvimétrie, car une telle méthodologie a été respectée. Van Loon et al [35] ont, en effet, réalisé une pelvimétrie par IRM parmi 235 femmes qui ont ensuite été randomisées en deux groupes. Dans le groupe étude (n = 118), les résultats de la pelvimétrie par IRM ont été communiqués aux obstétriciens responsables, qui ont utilisé ces données pour décider de l'épreuve du travail ou de la césa-rienne élective.…”

Section: Radiopelvimétrie Et Présentation Du Siègeunclassified

“…Ce risque potentiel a été un argument suffisant pour interdire de tout temps la radiopelvimétrie aux Pays-Bas [35]. Lundh et al [61] ont estimé le risque induit par l'exposition aux radiations ionisantes à un cas de cancer de l'enfance pour 50 000 radiopelvimétries.…”

Section: Radiopelvimétrie Et Risque Oncogèneunclassified

Quelle place pour la radiopelvimétrie au XXIe siècle?

Rozenberg

2007

Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Plusieurs études [7][8][9] ont démontré un risque de cancer dans l'enfance pour des foetus irradiés in utero, et, cela, quel que soit le terme de la grossesse [9,10]. Les Pays-Bas ont d'ailleurs interdit l'utilisation de la radiopelvimétrie au profit de la pelvimétrie par IRM [11]. Encadré 1.…”

Section: Une Radiopelvimétrie Est-elle Indiquée ?unclassified

Prise en charge de l’accouchement des patientes ayant un antécédent de césarienne

Poulain

Seconda

2010

Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Randomised controlled trial of magnetic-resonance pelvimetry in breech presentation at term

Cited by 90 publications

References 15 publications

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

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

Quelle place pour la radiopelvimétrie au XXIe siècle?

Prise en charge de l’accouchement des patientes ayant un antécédent de césarienne

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About