Abstracts reporting of HIV/AIDS randomized controlled trials in general medicine and infectious diseases journals: completeness to date and improvement in the quality since CONSORT extension for abstracts

Abstract

BackgroundSufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important, because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on information in the abstract. We aimed at comparing reporting quality of RCTs in HIV/AIDS medicine before and after the publication of the 2008 CONSORT extension for abstracts and to investigate factors associated with better reporting quality.MethodsWe searched PubMed/Medline for HIV/AIDS RCTs published between 2006–07 (Pre-CONSORT) and 2014–15 (Post-CONSORT) in 40 leading general medicine and infectious diseases journals. Two investigators extracted data and scored abstracts. The primary outcome was the adjusted mean number of items reported among the 17 required. Proportions of abstracts reporting each of 17 items were considered as secondary outcome. The adjustment was done for journal field, CONSORT endorsement, abstract format, type of intervention, journal impact factor and authorship. This study received no funding.ResultsThe adjusted mean number of reported items was 7.2 (95 % CI 6.6–7.7) in pre-CONSORT (n = 159) and 7.8 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 7.3–8.4) in post-CONSORT (n = 153) (mean difference 0.7; 95 % CI 0.1–1.2). Journal high impact factor (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2.16; 95 % CI 1.83–2.54), abstract with 13 authors or more (1.39; 95 % CI 1.07–1.79) and non-pharmacological intervention (1.19; 95 % CI 1.03–1.37) were independent factors for better reporting quality. There were significant improvements in reporting on participants, randomization, outcome results, registration and funding; regression for author contact; and no change for other items: title, design, interventions, objective, primary outcome, blinding, number randomized, recruitment, number analyzed, harms and conclusions.ConclusionsAfter the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts, the reporting quality of HIV/AIDS RCT abstracts in general medicine and infectious diseases journals has suboptimally improved. Thus, stricter adherence to the CONSORT for abstract are needed to improve the reporting quality of HIV/AIDS RCT abstracts.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0243-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Structure formats of randomised controlled trial abstracts: a cross-sectional analysis of their current usage and association with methodology reporting

“…The present study is, to our knowledge, the first study designed to compare the reporting quality of IMRaD and HS RCT abstracts. Among previous studies that used the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist to assess RCT abstract reporting, five have taken into account the structure of abstracts as a confounding variable [ 24 – 28 ]. In four of these studies, structure was analysed in two categories (unstructured vs. structured): 3 studies found that the reporting quality was significantly higher in structured abstracts, but not significantly higher anymore when other explanatory variables were accounted for [ 24 – 26 ]; while in the other study, authors found no significant difference between structured and unstructured abstracts in univariable analysis [ 27 ].…”

“…In four of these studies, structure was analysed in two categories (unstructured vs. structured): 3 studies found that the reporting quality was significantly higher in structured abstracts, but not significantly higher anymore when other explanatory variables were accounted for [ 24 – 26 ]; while in the other study, authors found no significant difference between structured and unstructured abstracts in univariable analysis [ 27 ]. In a more recent study, Bigna et al [ 28 ] categorised abstract structure into IMRaD, 8-heading and ‘one-block’. They found that both IMRaD and 8-heading abstracts were significantly better reported than ‘one-block’ abstracts in univariable GEE analysis, and again the difference was not significant anymore when other covariates were adjusted for.…”

“…To standardise and improve the reporting of RCT abstracts, the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group released the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines in 2008 [ 23 ]. Thereafter, many studies have used these guidelines to assess the reporting quality of RCT abstracts published in medical journals [ 24 – 37 ], several of which compared the reporting quality of structured and unstructured abstracts [ 24 – 28 ]. However, results of these studies have been inconsistent, and again, none of them has made a direct comparison between IMRaD and HS abstracts.…”

High-profile studies frequently and repetitively present data on the same patients, particularly in immunotherapy studies

“…This work found improvement in some areas but still reported substandard adherence to CONSORT statement (5). Another investigation in the field of HIV/AIDS research reported a small improvement in some areas but a similar inconsistency in complying with the CONSORT recommendations (6). Both studies validated the continuing importance of consistent reporting of clinical trials in abstracts.…”

Study publication date should not dictate suitability of methodological and reporting quality assessment

“…The proper evaluation of healthcare literature published prior to the existence of a relevant quality assessment tool creates an important opportunity to benchmark study quality over time by comparing recent reports with previous ones. This is critical to confirm if the quality assessment tool was actually able to promote an enhancement in the methodological and/or reporting process 10,19,20 .…”