CONSORT 2025 Checklist Checker
Check your randomised controlled trial against the CONSORT 2025 reporting checklist before submission to The Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, BMJ, or any ICMJE journal.
Check my manuscript, it's freeNo account required · Results in <2 minutes · PDF, Word & LaTeX
What the CONSORT 2025 checklist requires
CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) is the EQUATOR-endorsed reporting guideline for randomised controlled trials. The current version, CONSORT 2025, organises roughly 30 items across the title and abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and other-information sections, and requires a participant flow diagram. Major journals, The Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, and BMJ, require CONSORT-compliant reporting and often a completed checklist at submission. CheckMyManuscript flags missing or structurally incomplete CONSORT sections so you can fix them before a desk editor returns the paper; it checks presence and structure, not methodological quality.
CONSORT 2025 sections, and what CMM checks
Each section below maps to CONSORT 2025. CMM flags presence and structural signals; methodological adequacy is editorial and needs human review.
Title & structured abstract
✓ CMM checks thisIdentifies the study as a randomised trial; abstract reports design, methods, results, and conclusions in structured form.
Flag: title omits "randomised"; abstract missing a results figure for the primary outcome.
Source: consort-spirit.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Trial design & participants
✓ CMM checks thisTrial design (e.g. parallel, factorial) with allocation ratio; eligibility criteria and settings/locations of data collection.
Source: consort-spirit.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Randomisation (sequence, concealment, implementation)
✓ CMM checks thisSequence generation method, allocation-concealment mechanism, and who enrolled/assigned participants.
Editorial-adjacent: CMM flags if these subsections are absent, but cannot judge whether concealment was adequate.
Source: consort-spirit.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Outcomes, sample size & blinding
✓ CMM checks thisPre-specified primary/secondary outcomes, how sample size was determined, and who was blinded.
Source: consort-spirit.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Participant flow diagram
✓ CMM checks thisA CONSORT flow diagram showing enrolment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis numbers.
Flag: no flow diagram, or numbers analysed not reconciled with numbers randomised.
Source: consort-spirit.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Harms reporting
✓ CMM checks thisAll important harms or unintended effects in each group.
Source: consort-spirit.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Registration, protocol, funding & data sharing
✓ CMM checks thisTrial registration number, where the protocol can be accessed, funding sources, and a data-sharing statement.
Flag: missing registration number, an automatic return at most ICMJE journals.
Source: consort-spirit.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Methodological adequacy
Editorial, not auto-checkableWhether the randomisation, blinding, and analysis were appropriate for the research question.
Editorial judgement, outside the scope of an automated checker.
Source: equator-network.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
This page reflects CONSORT 2025, the current version, which replaces CONSORT 2010. CheckMyManuscript checks for the presence, structure, and likely-completeness signals of each reporting section; it does not adjudicate methodological adequacy and does not replace peer review. Verify the live checklist before submitting, last checked 16 June 2026.
CONSORT 2025 is the current reporting standard for randomised controlled trials, replacing the long-used CONSORT 2010 checklist. If you are submitting a trial to The Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, or BMJ, the editorial office expects CONSORT-compliant reporting, and often a completed checklist mapping each item to a page number. CheckMyManuscript screens your manuscript for the presence and structure of each CONSORT section so preventable gaps are caught before submission.
What changed in CONSORT 2025
CONSORT 2025 was developed alongside SPIRIT 2025 (for trial protocols) and strengthens reporting in several areas compared with CONSORT 2010, including harms, open-science practices, data sharing, and patient and public involvement. Because the checklist changed, manuscripts and journal templates built around CONSORT 2010 may now be missing newly emphasised items. Always work from the current CONSORT 2025 checklist on the official site.
What CheckMyManuscript checks, and what it does not
CheckMyManuscript flags structural signals: a missing flow diagram, an absent trial registration number, no data-sharing statement, an unstructured abstract, or a missing harms section. It does not determine whether the randomisation method was adequate, whether blinding was appropriate, or whether the statistical analysis was correct. Those are methodological judgements that require peer and editorial review. Use the checker to remove preventable desk-rejection triggers, not as a substitute for expert assessment.
Also see: PRISMA checklist checker | STROBE checklist checker | The Lancet submission checker
CONSORT-specific checks
Section presence
Flags missing CONSORT 2025 sections across abstract, methods, results, and other information.
Flow diagram
Checks for a participant flow diagram and basic enrolment-to-analysis number reconciliation.
Trial registration
Flags a missing trial registration number or protocol-access statement.
Structured abstract
Checks the abstract reports design, methods, results, and conclusions.
Data sharing & funding
Flags absent data-sharing and funding statements required by ICMJE journals.
Harms section
Flags if harms/adverse effects are not reported per arm.
Checks relevant to this topic
Part of our 80+ automated checks
Identified as randomised trial
Title/abstract identify the RCT design.
Flow diagram present
CONSORT participant flow diagram included.
Registration number
Trial registration number stated.
Data-sharing statement
Data-sharing statement present.
Harms reported
Harms/adverse effects reported per group.
The practical edge your peers already use
Across disciplines and career stages, researchers reduce bottlenecks and submit with confidence: clearer drafts, easier guideline compliance, and less back and forth with co‑authors and reviewers.
I use it to review my students' papers. It instantly highlights typos, missing references, and unclear sections, helping me focus my feedback on the quality of the research instead of surface errors.
Ilyass
Professor in Mechanical Engineering, ÉTS Montréal
I relied on it throughout my thesis to strengthen my writing. It suggested clearer phrasing, improved flow between sections, and ensured my references were complete before the final deadline.
Manon
Master's Student in Speech Therapy
I write research in both Portuguese and English, and it adapts perfectly to either language. It provided precise feedback in Portuguese, helping me maintain academic tone and consistency across my drafts.
Afonso
PhD Candidate, UFPE
It gave excellent advice on how to rephrase and present ideas more clearly and concisely. The suggestions helped me refine my arguments and make my research more impactful.
Félix
Postdoc Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology
A round of suggestions helped to generally refine the text of my paper and, moreover, to present some of its key points in a more focused form.
Oleg
Professor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
I use it to review my students' papers. It instantly highlights typos, missing references, and unclear sections, helping me focus my feedback on the quality of the research instead of surface errors.
Ilyass
Professor in Mechanical Engineering, ÉTS Montréal
I relied on it throughout my thesis to strengthen my writing. It suggested clearer phrasing, improved flow between sections, and ensured my references were complete before the final deadline.
Manon
Master's Student in Speech Therapy
I write research in both Portuguese and English, and it adapts perfectly to either language. It provided precise feedback in Portuguese, helping me maintain academic tone and consistency across my drafts.
Afonso
PhD Candidate, UFPE
It gave excellent advice on how to rephrase and present ideas more clearly and concisely. The suggestions helped me refine my arguments and make my research more impactful.
Félix
Postdoc Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology
A round of suggestions helped to generally refine the text of my paper and, moreover, to present some of its key points in a more focused form.
Oleg
Professor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Frequently asked questions
Use CONSORT 2025, the current version published by the CONSORT and SPIRIT groups, which replaces CONSORT 2010. It expands reporting on areas such as harms, open science, and data sharing. Most major journals now reference CONSORT 2025; confirm the specific journal's author guidelines.
No. CheckMyManuscript checks the presence, structure, and likely-completeness signals of each CONSORT section, for example, whether a flow diagram, trial registration number, and harms section exist. It does not verify methodological adequacy and does not replace peer or editorial review. Treat it as a pre-submission completeness screen, not a compliance certificate.
Yes. CONSORT requires a participant flow diagram showing the numbers enrolled, allocated, followed up, and analysed in each group. Journals frequently return trial manuscripts that omit the diagram or whose analysed numbers do not reconcile with the numbers randomised.
The Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, BMJ, and most ICMJE member journals require CONSORT-compliant reporting for randomised trials, and many request a completed CONSORT checklist with page references at submission. CONSORT extensions exist for specific designs (e.g. cluster, pilot/feasibility, and harms).