Abstracts of published randomized controlled trials in Endodontics: reporting quality and spin

Abstract

AimsTo assess the reporting quality of recently published randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in Endodontics, to investigate factors associated with reporting quality, and to evaluate the existence and characteristics of spin, that is using reporting strategies that distort study results and misguide readers.MethodologyThe PubMed database was searched to identify abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics published during 2017 to 2018. Two authors assessed the reporting quality of each included abstract using the original 16‐item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist, with the overall quality score (OQS, range: 0–16) being the primary outcome measure. For each individual item, a score of ‘1’ was given if it was described adequately, and ‘0’ if the description was inadequate. Linear regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with reporting quality. For the evaluation of spin, two authors selected parallel‐group RCTs with a nonsignificant primary outcome from the included abstracts and evaluated independently the existence and characteristics of spin amongst these abstracts.ResultsA total of 162 abstracts were included for assessment of reporting, for which the mean OQS was 3.97 (SD, 1.30; 95 % CI, 3.77–4.17). According to multivariable analysis, origin from Europe (P = 0.001) and reporting of the exact P value (P = 0.020) were significantly associated with better reporting. Forty abstracts with statistically nonsignificant results for their primary outcome were included for spin evaluation, amongst which 34 (85.0%) had at least one type of spin. Thirty‐two abstracts (94.1%) had spin in their conclusions section, and six abstracts (17.6%) had spin in the results section.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of randomized controlled trials abstracts in Endodontics needs to be improved. The occurrence rate of spin in the sample of abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics was high. Relevant stakeholders are recommended to be familiar with the CONSORT for Abstracts guideline and develop active strategies to ensure its implementation.

Abstracts Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Ten Highest-ranking Nursing Journals: Improvement in the Quality Since CONSORT Extension for Abstracts

“…However, the existence of this structure does not seem to provide sufficient information. Our results are consistent with others (Fang et al, 2020;Bero et al,1998) which appears a need to use specific strategies to implement research-based recommendations to ensure a change in approach. Study concluded that journals' active implementation of the CONSORT -A guidelines is associated with improved completeness of reporting of RCTs (Speich et al, 2020).…”

“…With the publication of CONSORT extension for abstract reporting (CONSORT-A), it was endorsed by the World Association of Medical Editors, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and the Council of Science Editors (Chhapola et al, 2018). Studies have been conducted based on CONSORT-A to evaluate the quality of abstract reporting in different areas and certain specialties (Germini et al, 2019;Faggion & Giannakopoulos, 2012;Chow et al, 2018;Fang et al, 2020;Gallo et al, 2020). However, these studies indicated that the reporting quality of RCT abstracts are consistently suboptimal.…”

Abstracts for reports of randomized trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin

“…Using the CONSORT explanation and elaboration statement for abstracts of parallel group randomized trials by Moher et al [4] and previous reports [ 5 , 14 ], two reviewers worked independently (DGW and YGZ) to make a judgment on whether an item in the RCT abstract was adequately reported. These two reviewers were calibrated through rounds of 10 randomly selected abstracts until strong agreement (Cohen's κ statistic ≥0.90) was reached.…”

“…The concept of spin was originally used in fields such as culture, politic and commerce, and is defined as a form of propaganda that could affect public views on an organization or public figure [5] . In health care, it was defined by Boutron and colleagues in 2010 as “specific reporting strategies from whatever motive, highlighting the interventions are beneficial despite the statistically non-significant differences for the primary outcomes” [6] .…”

“…In health care, it was defined by Boutron and colleagues in 2010 as “specific reporting strategies from whatever motive, highlighting the interventions are beneficial despite the statistically non-significant differences for the primary outcomes” [6] . Since then, it has been widely evaluated in several medical specialties [7] , including stomatology [ 5 , 8 ], otolaryngology [9] , surgery [ 10 , 11 ] and cardiology [12] . Considering that such a large number of COVID-19 articles are being published with shorter periods for peer review and editorial oversight, this raises the possibility that more spin is making its way into the literature and that readers are being misled.…”