An interrupted time series analysis showed suboptimal improvement in reporting quality of trial abstract

Chhapola, Viswas; Tiwari, Soumya; Brar, Rekha; Kanwal, Sandeep Kumar

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.10.013

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Firstly, we only included four SCIE-indexed, high-impact journals in the field of laser medicine, thus our results may not be generalizable to RCT abstracts published in other laser medicine or general medical journals. However, using abstracts published in high-impact, SCIE-indexed journals as the materials of assessment is a method commonly used in previous similar research [8,9,14,26]. Second, with multivariable linear regression analysis we found that specialty area is a significant predictor of reporting quality.…”

Section: Limitations and Strengthsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals, and investigate the association between potential predictors and reporting quality. A total of 129 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OCS was 4.5 (standard deviation, 1.3). Only three quality items (interventions, objective, conclusions) were reported adequately in most abstracts (>80%). No abstract adequately reported results for the primary outcome, source of funding, and status of the trial. In addition, sufficient reporting of participants, outcome in the methods section, randomization, and trial registration was rare (<5%). According to multivariable linear regression analysis, the specialty area of RCT abstracts was significantly associated with their reporting quality (P=0.008).The reporting quality of RCT abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals is suboptimal. Joint efforts by authors, editors and other stakeholders in the field to improve trial abstract reporting are needed.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Strengthsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because reporting quality and methodological quality of controlled trials are two different dimensions (for example, well-conducted trials may be reported poorly) (Huwiler-Müntener et al 2002), this should be evaluated in different ways. Our findings were consistent with those of previous studies in other fields of health research that reporting quality of the abstracts was suboptimal (Berwanger et al 2009;Chhapola et al 2016;Ghimire et al 2012;Guo & Iribarren 2014;Kiriakou et al 2014;Seehra et al 2013).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…We used the modified CONSORT for Abstracts checklist for data extraction ( Table 1). The CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (Hopewell et al 2008) is widely used as a tool to assess reporting quality for abstracts of randomized controlled trials in human (Chhapola et al 2016;Cui et al 2014;Fleming et al 2012;Ghimire et al 2014;Guo & Iribarren 2014;Hua et al 2015;Mbuagbaw et al 2014).This checklist consists of 17 items covering all important domains (title, trial design, methods, results, and conclusions) that are necessary for readers. Because some aspects of trials in chickens (as a livestock species) are inherently different from those of trials in human, we made a minor modification in the checklist to fit a context of chicken trials.…”

Section: Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To make the abstract having adequate information for readers, the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist was developed (Hopewell et al 2008). This checklist serves authors to prepare the abstract of their manuscript and has been used as a gold standard tool to evaluate reporting quality of an RCT abstract (Chhapola et al 2016;Cui et al 2014;Fleming et al 2012;Ghimire et al 2014;Guo & Iribarren 2014;Hua et al 2015;Mbuagbaw et al 2014). Findings from previous studies suggest that reporting quality of RCT abstracts from health research is suboptimal (Berwanger et al 2009;Fleming et al 2012;Ghimire et al 2012;Guo & Iribarren 2014;Kiriakou et al 2014;Seehra et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untitled

Supplemental Information 1: Supplemental Raw Data

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In publication of a controlled trial article from health science research, the abstract is an important part that readers usually read first and then decide whether to read the whole article; therefore, information provided in the abstract should be adequate. The CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) for Abstracts checklist has been developed and used as a guideline for authors to prepare their manuscripts. This checklist has also been used as a tool to evaluate published abstracts. The objectives of this study were to evaluate reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) and non-RCT abstracts from chicken research and to determine factors associated with the reporting quality. We searched PubMed for RCT and non-RCT abstracts involving chicken research published between 2006 and 2015. The included abstracts were evaluated using the modified CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The primary outcome was a mean overall quality score (OQS), which, for each abstract, was a sum of items reported in the modified CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. In addition, some pre-specified factors were evaluated for their association with the reporting quality using simple and multiple linear regression analyses. A total of 949 abstracts (n=262 for RCT and n=687 for non-RCT abstracts) were included and evaluated. Although OQS was significantly greater in RCT than in non-RCT abstracts (mean ± SD, 6.7 ± 0.9 vs 3.3 ± 1.1; P-value<0.001), both mean scores were still less than half of the full score of 15. Only 2 items-objective and conclusions-were adequately reported (>80%) in both types of the abstracts. Items concerning trial design, participants, interventions, randomization, and number randomized were adequately reported only in the RCT abstracts. In contrast, items concerning the study as randomized in the title, clearly defined primary outcome, blinding, numbers analyzed, estimated effect size and its precision for the primary outcome, trial registration, and funding were not reported or reported less than 5% in both RCT and non-RCT abstracts. In this study, 4 factors-year of publication, number of trials reported, number of experimental groups reported, and sample size reported-were associated with OQS. That is, abstracts with higher OQS were published more recently, reported a single trial rather than multiple trials, reported number of experimental groups rather than not reported, and reported sample size rather than not reported. These factors explained about 37.5% of the variance of OQS. In

show abstract

“…The effectiveness of reporting guidelines may turn on how strictly endorsement is implemented (Chhapolaa et al, 2016), which may depend on journals' resources. Various views were apparent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Endorsing Reporting Guidelines: the Journal of Infection Prevention helps show the way!

Stone

Cookson

2016

Journal of Infection Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An interrupted time series analysis showed suboptimal improvement in reporting quality of trial abstract

Cited by 16 publications

References 29 publications

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines

Untitled

Endorsing Reporting Guidelines: the Journal of Infection Prevention helps show the way!

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About