The REFLECT Statement: Methods and Processes of Creating Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials for Livestockand Food Safety
Authors: O'Connor, A. M.; Sargeant, J. M.; Gardner, I. A.; Dickson, J. S.; Torrence, M. E.; Dewey, C. E.; Dohoo, I. R.; Evans, R. B.; Gray, J. T.; Greiner, M.; Keefe, G.; Lefebvre, S. L.; Morley, P. S.; Ramirez, A.; Sischo, W.; Smith, D. R.; Snedeker, K.; Sofos, J. N.; Ward, M. P.; Wills, R.
Source: Journal of Food Protection®, Number 1, January 2010, pp. 4-202 , pp. 132-139(8)
Abstract:The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health, and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that may not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A two-day consensus meeting was held on November 18–19, 2008 in Chicago, Ill, United States of America, to achieve the objective. Prior to the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors, and associate editors. Prior to the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items may need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety (LFS) and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist, and an additional sub-item was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes.
Document Type: Review Article
Affiliations: Vet Diagnostic & Production Animal Med, Veterinary Medicine Research Institute Building 4, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Publication date: January 1, 2010
- IAFP members must first sign in on the right to access full text articles of JFP First published in 1937, the Journal of Food Protection®, is a refereed monthly publication. Each issue contains scientific research and authoritative review articles reporting on a variety of topics in food science pertaining to food safety and quality. The Journal is internationally recognized as the leading publication in the field of food microbiology with a readership exceeding 11,000 scientists from 70 countries. The Journal of Food Protection® is indexed in Index Medicus, Current Contents, BIOSIS, PubMed, Medline, and many others.
Print and online subscriptions are available to Members and Institutional subscribers. Online visitors who are not IAFP Members or journal subscribers will be charged on a pay-per-view basis. Information can be obtained by calling +1 800.369.6337; +1 515.276.3344; fax: +1 515.276.8655, E-mail: email@example.com or Web site: www.foodprotection.org
- Information for Authors
- Submit a Paper
- Subscribe to this Title
- Membership Information
- Information for Advertisers
- ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites
- In this: publication
- By this: publisher
- In this Subject: Nutrition & Food
- By this author: O'Connor, A. M. ; Sargeant, J. M. ; Gardner, I. A. ; Dickson, J. S. ; Torrence, M. E. ; Dewey, C. E. ; Dohoo, I. R. ; Evans, R. B. ; Gray, J. T. ; Greiner, M. ; Keefe, G. ; Lefebvre, S. L. ; Morley, P. S. ; Ramirez, A. ; Sischo, W. ; Smith, D. R. ; Snedeker, K. ; Sofos, J. N. ; Ward, M. P. ; Wills, R.