Background: In articles reporting randomized controlled trials, professional medical writing support is associated with increased adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). We set out to determine whether professional medical writing support was also associated with improved adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts. Methods: Using data from a previously published cross-sectional study of 463 articles reporting randomized controlled trials published between 2011 and 2014 in five top medical journals, we determined the association between professional medical writing support and CONSORT for Abstracts items using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: The mean proportion of adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts items reported was similar with and without professional medical writing support (64.3% vs 66.5%, respectively; p=0.30). Professional medical writing support was associated with lower adherence to reporting study setting (relative risk [RR]; 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23–0.70), and higher adherence to disclosing harms/side effects (RR 2.04; 95% CI, 1.37–3.03) and funding source (RR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18–2.60). Conclusions: Although professional medical writing support was not associated with increased overall adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts, important aspects were improved with professional medical writing support, including reporting of adverse events and funding source. This study identifies areas to consider for improvement.

In articles reporting randomized controlled trials, professional Background medical writing support is associated with increased adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). We set out to determine whether professional medical writing support was also associated with improved adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts.: Using data from a previously published cross-sectional study of 463 Methods articles reporting randomized controlled trials published between 2011 and 2014 in five top medical journals, we determined the association between professional medical writing support and CONSORT for Abstracts items using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.: The mean proportion of adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts items Results reported was similar with and without professional medical writing support (64.3% vs 66.5%, respectively; p=0.30). Professional medical writing support was associated with lower adherence to reporting study setting (relative risk [RR]; 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.70), and higher adherence to disclosing harms/side effects (RR 2.04; 95% CI, 1.37-3.03) and funding source (RR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18-2.60).: Although professional medical writing support was not Conclusions associated with increased overall adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts, important aspects were improved with professional medical writing support, including reporting of adverse events and funding source. This study identifies areas to consider for improvement.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

IntroductionAustralian practices for diagnosing fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) are lengthy and require specialist expertise. Specialist teams are based in urban locations; they are expensive and have prolonged waitlists. Innovative, flexible solutions are needed to ensure First Nations children living in rural/remote communities have culturally appropriate and equitable access to timely diagnosis and support. This study compares the accuracy of rapid assessments (index tests) that can be administered by a range of primary healthcare practitioners to specialist standardised FASD assessments (reference tests). The cost-efficiency of index tests will be compared with reference tests.Methods and analysisAt least 200 children aged 6–16 years at-risk of FASD will be recruited across at least seven study sites. Following standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy study (STARD) guidelines, all children will complete index and reference tests. Diagnostic accuracy statistics (including receiver operating curves, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios) will identify whether rapid assessments can accurately identify: (1) the presence of an FASD diagnosis and (2) impairment in each neurodevelopmental domain, compared to comprehensive assessments. Direct and indirect healthcare costs for index tests compared to reference tests will be collected in primary healthcare and specialist settings.Ethics and dissemination of resultsChildren’s Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/20/QCHQ/63173); Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (2020/743). Results will assist in validating the use of index tests as part of a tiered neurodevelopmental assessment process that was co-designed with First Nations community and primary healthcare practitioners. Outcomes will be summarised and provided to participating practitioners and sites, and disseminated to community health services and consumers. Findings will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberACTRN12622000498796.