Published in PLoS One on August 28, 2008
CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ (2010) 28.70
CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ (2010) 22.34
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (2009) 22.18
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med (2009) 21.74
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci (2013) 13.37
The ClinicalTrials.gov results database--update and key issues. N Engl J Med (2011) 9.83
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med (2010) 9.30
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ (2013) 9.01
Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials (2012) 8.39
SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med (2013) 8.21
Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med (2010) 7.43
Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med (2009) 6.89
CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med (2010) 6.88
Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis. BMJ (2012) 6.39
Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS One (2010) 6.28
Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med (2010) 6.27
Publication of trials funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. N Engl J Med (2013) 5.10
Future impact: Predicting scientific success. Nature (2012) 4.59
Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One (2013) 4.38
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials (2010) 4.28
The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med (2011) 4.14
Health workforce skill mix and task shifting in low income countries: a review of recent evidence. Hum Resour Health (2011) 3.97
Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med (2012) 3.62
Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med (2011) 3.62
Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists. BMJ (2011) 3.50
Poverty and common mental disorders in low and middle income countries: A systematic review. Soc Sci Med (2010) 2.90
"Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS One (2010) 2.80
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Front Hum Neurosci (2013) 2.78
Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS One (2014) 2.75
Bias, spin, and misreporting: time for full access to trial protocols and results. PLoS Med (2008) 2.60
Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ (2008) 2.56
Transforming epidemiology for 21st century medicine and public health. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2013) 2.56
Vitamin A supplements for preventing mortality, illness, and blindness in children aged under 5: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (2011) 2.51
Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review. Trials (2010) 2.44
Systematic evaluation of environmental factors: persistent pollutants and nutrients correlated with serum lipid levels. Int J Epidemiol (2012) 2.42
The quality of registration of clinical trials. PLoS One (2011) 2.42
Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med (2010) 2.24
The importance of clinical trial data sharing: toward more open science. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes (2012) 2.16
CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother (2010) 2.13
Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting. J Clin Oncol (2012) 2.05
Completeness and changes in registered data and reporting bias of randomized controlled trials in ICMJE journals after trial registration policy. PLoS One (2011) 1.98
Prognostic effect size of cardiovascular biomarkers in datasets from observational studies versus randomised trials: meta-epidemiology study. BMJ (2011) 1.97
Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. BMC Med (2012) 1.85
Evaluating the impact of database heterogeneity on observational study results. Am J Epidemiol (2013) 1.83
The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biol (2015) 1.71
Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?--a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups. Trials (2013) 1.69
Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention. Trends Cogn Sci (2014) 1.69
Publication bias in antipsychotic trials: an analysis of efficacy comparing the published literature to the US Food and Drug Administration database. PLoS Med (2012) 1.62
Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One (2010) 1.61
Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. FASEB J (2014) 1.60
Tracking replicability as a method of post-publication open evaluation. Front Comput Neurosci (2012) 1.56
Recognizing, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the WHO. J R Soc Med (2011) 1.53
Cardiovascular MRI in clinical trials: expanded applications through novel surrogate endpoints. Heart (2011) 1.52
Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies. BMC Med Res Methodol (2009) 1.51
Nutritively sweetened beverage consumption and body weight: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized experiments. Obes Rev (2011) 1.50
Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years. Trials (2013) 1.47
Promoting transparency in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research. Am J Public Health (2011) 1.46
How do we create, and improve, the evidence base? Br Dent J (2016) 1.40
Outcomes in clinical trials of inhaled corticosteroids for children with asthma are narrowly focussed on short term disease activity. PLoS One (2009) 1.36
A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol (2016) 1.36
Adjunctive atypical antipsychotic treatment for major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of depression, quality of life, and safety outcomes. PLoS Med (2013) 1.35
Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Trials (2014) 1.34
Evolution of heterogeneity (I2) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals in large meta-analyses. PLoS One (2012) 1.33
Behavioural and developmental interventions for autism spectrum disorder: a clinical systematic review. PLoS One (2008) 1.31
Sexual orientation and gender identity/expression related peer victimization in adolescence: a systematic review of associated psychosocial and health outcomes. J Sex Res (2013) 1.31
On the plurality of (methodological) worlds: estimating the analytic flexibility of FMRI experiments. Front Neurosci (2012) 1.31
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Open Med (2010) 1.29
CNODES: the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies. Open Med (2012) 1.26
Assessing the potential for outcome reporting bias in a review: a tutorial. Trials (2010) 1.26
Four Proposals to Help Improve the Medical Research Literature. PLoS Med (2015) 1.25
Estimating within-study covariances in multivariate meta-analysis with multiple outcomes. Stat Med (2012) 1.23
Legislation for trial registration and data transparency. Trials (2010) 1.22
Peripheral biomarkers of endometriosis: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update (2010) 1.21
Knowledge integration in cancer: current landscape and future prospects. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2012) 1.19
Reporting of eligibility criteria of randomised trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articles. BMJ (2011) 1.19
Cars, CONSORT 2010, and clinical practice. Trials (2010) 1.18
Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med (2015) 1.17
Fighting publication bias: introducing the Negative Results section. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab (2010) 1.17
Developing a guideline for clinical trial protocol content: Delphi consensus survey. Trials (2012) 1.17
Positive outcomes influence the rate and time to publication, but not the impact factor of publications of clinical trial results. PLoS One (2013) 1.17
A descriptive analysis of a representative sample of pediatric randomized controlled trials published in 2007. BMC Pediatr (2010) 1.15
Association of BCG, DTP, and measles containing vaccines with childhood mortality: systematic review. BMJ (2016) 1.15
Guidelines for randomized clinical trial protocol content: a systematic review. Syst Rev (2012) 1.15
Clinical trial registration in oral health journals. J Dent Res (2014) 1.15
Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia (2010) 1.14
An empirical assessment of validation practices for molecular classifiers. Brief Bioinform (2011) 1.13
Use of trial register information during the peer review process. PLoS One (2013) 1.13
Time to publication among completed clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med (2013) 1.13
Shift work and cancer: the evidence and the challenge. Dtsch Arztebl Int (2010) 1.10
Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics. Syst Rev (2013) 1.07
Biologic agents in rheumatology: unmet issues after 200 trials and $200 billion sales. Nat Rev Rheumatol (2013) 1.07
The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies. PLoS One (2014) 1.06
Development of a core set of outcomes for randomized controlled trials with multiple outcomes--example of pulp treatments of primary teeth for extensive decay in children. PLoS One (2013) 1.06
Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis. Syst Rev (2014) 1.06
What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities. Ann Intern Med (2012) 1.05
Potential reporting bias in fMRI studies of the brain. PLoS One (2013) 1.05
Sponsors' participation in conduct and reporting of industry trials: a descriptive study. Trials (2012) 1.04
Unaffected perceptual thresholds for biological and non-biological form-from-motion perception in autism spectrum conditions. PLoS One (2010) 1.04
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA (2004) 23.87
Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet (1991) 22.85
Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA (1992) 10.84
Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ (2004) 10.75
Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA (1998) 9.91
Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ (1997) 9.69
Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ (2003) 7.78
Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2007) 7.52
Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess (2000) 6.47
Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ (2005) 5.36
Study of information submitted by drug companies to licensing authorities. Br Med J (1980) 4.76
How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev (1997) 4.67
Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials (1987) 4.34
Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias. BMJ (2005) 3.89
Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results. Lancet (2003) 3.61
Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA (2002) 3.60
Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA (2002) 3.52
NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials (1993) 3.41
Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study. BMJ (2005) 3.28
Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee. J Eval Clin Pract (2002) 3.23
Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. J Clin Epidemiol (2006) 2.97
Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res (2005) 2.86
Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. Swiss Med Wkly (2008) 2.69
Evaluation of new treatments in radiation oncology: are they better than standard treatments? JAMA (2005) 2.37
Publication bias and research on passive smoking: comparison of published and unpublished studies. JAMA (1998) 2.33
Evolution of treatment effects over time: empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2001) 2.12
Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med (2005) 1.86
Bias in reporting clinical trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol (1998) 1.70
False-positive results in clinical trials: multiple significance tests and the problem of unreported comparisons. J Natl Cancer Inst (1996) 1.66
Effect sizes in cumulative meta-analyses of mental health randomized trials evolved over time. J Clin Epidemiol (2004) 1.56
Effect of early patient enrollment on the time to completion and publication of randomized controlled trials. Am J Epidemiol (2001) 1.40
Application and investigation of a bound for outcome reporting bias. Trials (2007) 1.32
An empirical evaluation of multifarious outcomes in pharmacogenetics: beta-2 adrenoceptor gene polymorphisms in asthma treatment. Pharmacogenet Genomics (2006) 1.30
Impact of funding on biomedical research: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Public Health (2006) 1.28
[Evaluation of clinical trials following an approval from a research ethics committee]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr (2007) 1.16
Factors influencing the publication of health research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care (2004) 1.13
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (2003) 128.20
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med (2009) 65.36
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med (2009) 35.37
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ (2009) 34.99
Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges. Nat Rev Genet (2008) 30.94
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (2011) 29.14
CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ (2010) 28.70
Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol (2010) 27.58
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA (2004) 23.87
CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ (2010) 22.34
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (2009) 22.18
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med (2009) 21.74
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet (2007) 20.57
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol (2009) 17.92
Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol (2010) 17.30
CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ (2004) 16.50
CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med (2010) 16.11
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ (2007) 14.52
Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials (2007) 14.51
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol (2008) 14.36
Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med (2008) 13.87
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci (2013) 13.37
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg (2010) 12.98
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med (2009) 12.16
Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA (2006) 11.87
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol (2009) 11.80
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med (2007) 11.51
Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med (2004) 11.47
Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust (2006) 11.40
Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ (2008) 11.08
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev (2015) 11.05
Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ (2004) 10.75
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med (2007) 10.43
Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ (2008) 9.98
Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst (2005) 9.38
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med (2010) 9.30
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ (2013) 9.01
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med (2007) 8.77
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med (2007) 8.46
Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials (2012) 8.39
The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ (2006) 8.26
Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Stat Med (2006) 8.25
SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med (2013) 8.21
Association of KRAS p.G13D mutation with outcome in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. JAMA (2010) 8.21
Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract (2004) 8.06
Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA (2009) 7.89
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med (2007) 7.87
A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol (2009) 7.86
Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One (2009) 7.60
Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ (2014) 7.55
Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ (2012) 7.47
Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med (2010) 7.43
Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ (2004) 7.33
Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised trials. BMJ (2014) 7.21
A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin. N Engl J Med (2013) 7.18
CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 7.04
CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med (2010) 6.88
Survival benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol (2007) 6.82
Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ (2011) 6.80
Systematic meta-analyses and field synopsis of genetic association studies in schizophrenia: the SzGene database. Nat Genet (2008) 6.71
Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ (2003) 6.61
Survival plots of time-to-event outcomes in clinical trials: good practice and pitfalls. Lancet (2002) 6.61
Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet (2005) 6.55
Low-dose aspirin for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med (2012) 6.42
Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies. J Clin Oncol (2005) 6.31
The SANAD study of effectiveness of valproate, lamotrigine, or topiramate for generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2007) 6.20
The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case report guideline development. J Clin Epidemiol (2013) 5.93
Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation. Int J Epidemiol (2008) 5.88
CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med (2008) 5.85
Research grants: Conform and be funded. Nature (2012) 5.83
Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA (2002) 5.81
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology (2007) 5.77
The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ (2010) 5.70
The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ (2010) 5.58
No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet (2009) 5.57
Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat (2007) 5.52
Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies 56 bone mineral density loci and reveals 14 loci associated with risk of fracture. Nat Genet (2012) 5.48
An independent external validation and evaluation of QRISK cardiovascular risk prediction: a prospective open cohort study. BMJ (2009) 5.45
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bull World Health Organ (2007) 5.38
Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score. JAMA (2009) 5.36
Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ (2005) 5.36
Twenty bone-mineral-density loci identified by large-scale meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet (2009) 5.32
The design of simulation studies in medical statistics. Stat Med (2006) 5.30
Infrared ear thermometry compared with rectal thermometry in children: a systematic review. Lancet (2002) 5.18
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology (2007) 5.12
Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med (2008) 5.09
Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of all major randomised clinical trials. Lancet (2002) 5.04
Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA (2013) 4.98