CONSORT EVALUATION

Consort Evaluation of a published research report



Introduction

Consort Evaluation follows criteria for evaluating a literature. Here we have evaluated a published report following the criteria of Consort Evaluation. The title of the research report is “Effectiveness of training on the community skills of children with intellectual disabilities”.

Title

This title is not able to be identified in an electronic database as a report of randomized trial as it lacks the word “randomized” and due to this word missing the study will not be properly indexed. Apart from the problem in indexing the study, it is also not identified by the title that the participants of the study were randomly assigned.

Abstract

Description of Author and Trial Design

Details of corresponding author's contact and the description of the design of the trial such as non-inferiority, cluster, or parallel are not provided in the abstract.

Method

An eligibility criterion for the participants is their age that must be in between 9 to 11 years. There is no detail about the setting where the data is collected. The intervention of the control and treatment group is a training program. Hypothesis is not mentioned in the methodology given in abstract. Primary outcomes are not clearly defined for this report. The intervention is allocated to the treatment group but it is not given that whether the participants were familiar with the process and the group assignments were known to the care givers and participants or not.

Results

Despite of the total sample size given in the 'material and methods' there is no detail provided for the number of participants randomized and analyzed in each group and also the details of trial status are missing in the results. Hence the result in abstract only shows the outcomes but lacks the information about any important side effect or adverse event.

Conclusion

Only general interpretation of the result is given in the conclusion but the details regarding registration number and name of trial register and the source of funding are missing.

Introduction

Background

A detailed scientific background with evidences is provided in a comprehensive manner about the rationale of the study is merged with this detail and there is not separate description of the rationale. Author has provided literature support for the effectiveness of the intervention but the probability of harms is never given. The way the intervention work is described I plausible explanation.

Objectives

Three questions that the trial was designed to answer are given under the name of ...