Osteoporosis International

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 305–313 | Cite as

Standards of reporting: the use of CONSORT PRO and CERT in individuals living with osteoporosis

  • D. E. MackEmail author
  • P. M. Wilson
  • E. Santos
  • K. Brooks


The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Patient-Reported Outcomes (CONSORT PRO) and the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) have been developed to improve the quality and transparency of reporting standards in scientific research. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence for the adoption of CONSORT PRO and CERT by researchers examining the link between exercise and quality of life in individuals living with osteoporosis. A systematic search was conducted to identify randomized control trials published in English evaluating exercise interventions on quality of life in individuals living with osteoporosis. Reporting standards were assessed using CONSORT PRO and CERT. A total of 127 studies were identified with 23 meeting inclusion criteria. “Good” evidence for eight (42.1%) CONSORT PRO and two (12.5%) CERT items was found. Adherence to CONSORT PRO was not related to the year of publication, journal impact factor, or study quality. Adherence to CONSORT PRO and CERT reporting standards is inadequate in the literature examining exercise interventions on quality of life in individuals living with osteoporosis. Sufficient reporting is paramount to knowledge translation, interpretation by interventionists, and clinician confidence in understanding if (and how) exercise is associated with quality of life outcomes in this cohort. Concerns associated with failure to include this information are highlighted.


CERT CONSORT PRO Exercise Osteoporosis Quality of life Standards of reporting 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards (2008) Reporting standards for research in psychology. Why do we need them? What might they be? Am Psychol 63:839–851. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goodman SN, Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA (2016) What does research reproducibility mean? Sci Translat Med 8:341. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ et al (2010) CONSORT 2010 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiology 63:e1–e37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 8:18. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EQUATOR Network online Library for Health Research Reporting. Enhancing the quality and transparent of health research. Accessed 15 June 2017
  6. 6.
    Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, Revicki DA, Moher D, Brundage MD, for the CONSORT PRO Group (2013) Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA 309:814–822. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    United States Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Accessed 13 June 2017
  8. 8.
    Mercieca-Bebber R, Routte J, Calvert M, King MT, McLeod L, Holch P et al (2017) Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Qual Life Res 26:1427–1437. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stevens DJ, Blencowe NS, McElnay PJ, Macefield RC, Savović J, Avery KNL, Blazeby JM (2016) A systematic review of patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials of unplanned general surgery. World J Surg 40:267–276. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S (2008) What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 336:1472.
  11. 11.
    Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D et al (2014) Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 348:1687.
  12. 12.
    Slade SC, Dionne CE, Underwood M, Buchbinder R (2016) Consensus on exercise reporting template (CERT): explanation and elaboration statement. Br J Sports Med 50:1428–1437. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Slade SC, Dionne CE, Underwood M, Buchbinder R, Beck B, Bennell K et al (2016) Consensus on exercise reporting template (CERT): modified Delphi study. Phys Ther 96:1514–1524. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slade SC, Keating JL (2011) Exercise prescription: a case for standardised reporting. Br J Sports Med 46:1110–1113. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abell B, Glasziou P, Hoffmann T (2015) Reporting and replicating trials of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. Do we know what the researchers actually did? Cir Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 8:187–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gianola S, Castellini G, Agostini M, Bolotta R, Corbetta D, Frigerio P et al (2016) Reporting of rehabilitation intervention for low back pain in randomized controlled trials: is the treatment fully replicable? Spine 41:412–418. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tew GA, Brabyn S, Cook L, Peckham E (2016) The completeness of intervention descriptions in randomized trials of supervised exercise training in peripheral arterial disease. PLoS One 11:e0150869. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yamato TP, Maher CG, Saragiotto BT, Hoffmann TC, Moseley AM (2016) How completely are physiotherapy interventions described in reports of randomised trials? Physiother 102:121–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Charlton PC, Drew MK, Mentiplay BF, Grimaldi A, Clark RA (2017) Exercise interventions for the prevention and treatment of groin pain and injury in athletes: a critical and systematic review. Sports Med 47:2011–2026.
  20. 20.
    Giangregorio LM, Macintyre NJ, Heinonen A, Cheung AM, Wark JD, Shipp K et al (2014) Too fit to fracture: a consensus on future research priorities in osteoporosis and exercise. Osteoporos Int 25:1465–1472. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Howe TE, Shea, B, Dawson LJ, Downie F, Murray A, Ross C et al (2011) Exercise for preventing and treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7.
  22. 22.
    Sherrington C, Tiedemann A, Fairhall N, Close J, Lord SR (2011) Exercise for preventing falls in older adults: an updated exercise for improving outcomes after osteoporotic vertebral fracture meta-analysis and best practice recommendations. NSW Public. Health Bull 22:78–83Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caputo EL, Zanusso Costa M (2014) Influence of physical activity on quality of life in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis. Rev Bras Reumatol 54:467–473. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Giangregorio LM, MacIntyre NJ, Thabane L, Skidmore CJ, Papaioannou A (2013) Exercise for improving outcomes after osteoporotic vertebral fracture. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD008618. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mack DE, Wilson PM, Gunnell KE (2017) Land of confusion: unpacking the relationship between physical activity and well-being in individuals living with osteoporosis. Int Rev Sport Exercise Psychol 10:212–229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Svensson HK, Olsson LE, Hansson T, Karlsson J, Hansson-Olofsson E (2017) The effects of person-centred or other supportive intervention in older women with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures—a systematic review of the literature. Osteoporos Int 28:2521–2540.
  27. 27.
    Wilhelm M, Roskovensky G, Emery K, Manno K, Valek K, Cook C (2012) Effect of resistance exercises on function in older adults with osteoporosis or osteopenia: a systematic review. Physiother Can 64:386–394. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Efficace F, Fayers P, PusicA CY, Yanagawa J, Jacobs M, la Sala A et al (2015) Quality of patient-reported outcome (PRO) reporting across cancer randomized controlled trials according to the CONSORT PRO extension: a pooled analysis of 557 trials. Cancer 121:3335–3342. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weingärtner V, Dargatz N, Weber C, Mueller D, Stock S, Voltz R, Gaertner J (2016) Patient reported outcomes in randomized controlled cancer trials in advanced disease: a structured literature review. Expert Rev Clinical Pharm 9:821–829. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dirven L, Taphoorn MJB, Reijneveld JC, Blazeby J, Jacobs M, Pusic A et al (2014) The level of patient-reported outcome in reporting in randomised controlled trials of brain tumour patients: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer 50:2432–2448. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M (2003) Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 83:713–721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    PEDro: Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Accessed 27 July 2017
  33. 33.
    Rouette J, Blazeby J, King M, Calvert M, Peng Y, Meyer RM et al (2015) Integrating health-related quality of life findings from randomized clinical trials into practice: an international study of oncologists’ perspectives. Qual of Life Res 24:1317–1325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zagadailov E, Fine M, Sheilds A (2013) Patient-reported outcomes are changing the landscape in oncology care: challenges and opportunities for payers. Am Health Drug Benefits 6:364–374Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Linke SE, Gallo LC, Norman GJ (2011) Attrition and adherence rates of sustained vs. intermittent exercise interventions. Ann Behav Med 42:197–209. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014) Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    National Research Council (2010) The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. Panel on handling missing data in clinical trials. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bowling A (2005) Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effect of data quality. J Public Health 27:281–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Puhan MA, Ahuja A, Van Natta ML, Ackatz LE, Meinert C (2011) Interviewer versus self-administered health-related quality of life questionnaires—does it matter? Health Qual Life Outcomes 9:30. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rutherford C, Costa D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Rice H, Gabb L, King M (2016) Mode of administration does not cause biases in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res 25:559–574. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Harlow LL, Mulaik SA, Steiger JH (eds) (1997) What if there were no significance tests? Erlbaum, Mahwah NJGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kyte D, Duffy H, Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Merieca-Bebber R, King M et al (2014) Systematic evaluation of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of clinical trial protocols. PLoS One 9:e110229. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Page P, Hoogenboom B, Voight M (2017) Improving the reporting of therapeutic exercise interventions in rehabilitation research. Int J Sports Phys Ther 12:297–304PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Küçükçakır N, Altan L, Korkmaz N (2013) Effects of Pilates exercises on pain, functional status and quality of life in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. J of Bodyw Mov Therapies 17:204–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tüzün S, Aktas I, Akarirmak U, Sipahi S, Tüzün F (2010) Yoga might be an alternative training for the quality of life and balance in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Eur J Phys Rehab Med 46:69–72Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    American College of Sports Medicine (2014) ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription, 9th edn. Lippioncott, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bennell KL, Matthews B, Grief A, Briggs A, Kelly A, Sherburn M et al (2010) Effects of an exercise and manual therapy program on physical impairments, function and quality of life in people with osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a randomised, single-blind controlled pilot trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:36. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hoffmann TC, Maher CG, Briffa T, Sherrington C, Bennell K, Alison J, Singh MF, Glasziou PP (2016) Prescribing exercise interventions for patients with chronic conditions. CMAJ 188:510–518. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W et al (2015) Process evaluation for complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 350.
  50. 50.
    Quested E, Ntoumanis N, Thøgersen-Ntoumani C, Hagger MS, Hancox JE (2017) Evaluating quality of implementation in physical activity interventions based on theories of motivation: current challenges and future directions. Int Rev Sport Exercise Psychol 10:252–269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. E. Mack
    • 1
    Email author
  • P. M. Wilson
    • 1
  • E. Santos
    • 2
  • K. Brooks
    • 2
  1. 1.Behavioural Health Sciences Research Lab, Centre for Bone and Muscle Health, Department of KinesiologyBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada
  2. 2.Behavioural Health Sciences Research Lab, Faculty of Applied Health SciencesBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations