Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals

Ghimire, Saurav; Kyung, Eunjung; Kang, Wonku; Kim, Eun Young

doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-77

Cited by 129 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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: 93%

“…Randomization, one of the most important items in this domain, is an experimental design tool used for reducing bias, and it is used for categorizing trials into RCTs and non-RCTs. Reporting quality of abstracts in medical literature is usually performed in RCTs only (Cui et al 2014;Ghimire et al 2012;Guo & Iribarren 2014;Hua et al 2015;Kiriakou et al 2014) because non-RCTs are not widely acceptable due to high risk of bias.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Blinding is also an experimental design tool for reducing bias; however, blinding was not reported in the RCT abstracts and was reported only 1/687 in the non-RCT abstracts indicating high risk of bias in the study's results of subjective outcomes. In medical journals, reporting of blinding in abstracts was also inadequate ranging from less than 10% (Cui et al 2014;Guo & Iribarren 2014) to less than 40% (Ghimire et al 2012), but it was improved over time (Hua et al 2015;Mbuagbaw et al 2014). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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). Several factors such as abstract word limit, abstract format, publication year, impact factor of the journal may be associated with reporting quality of RCT abstracts (Ghimire et al 2014;Guo & Iribarren 2014;Hua et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reporting quality of randomized and non-randomized controlled trial abstracts from chicken research

Sukon

Kongpechr

Bubpahou

et al. 2016

Preprint

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 AbstractIn 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 objective...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reporting quality of randomized and non-randomized controlled trial abstracts from chicken research

Sukon

Kongpechr

Bubpahou

et al. 2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ursprüng-lich für die Publikation von 2 Parallelgruppen entwickelt, wurden CONSORTErweiterungen für weitere randomisierte Studiendesigns wie z. B. Cluster-randomisierte Studien [3], "Non-inferiority"-und Äquivalenzstudien [13], aber auch Vorgaben für die Publikation von Abstracts [8] Fachzeitschriften das Befolgen des CON-SORT-Statements zunehmend befürwor-ten, zeigten neuere Untersuchungen, dass die Qualität des Berichtens von medizinischen Studien weiterhin verbesserungsbedürftig ist [6,7,14]. Untersuchungen der Studienberichterstattung in den TopAnästhesie-und Top-IntensivmedizinJournals ergaben eine nur ca.…”

Section: Consort-statement Für Randomisierte Kontrollierte Studienunclassified

Mindestanforderungen an qualitativ hochwertige Berichte medizinischer Forschungsergebnisse

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Tool to Generate the CONSORT Reporting Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for randomized clinical trials is associated with improvingquality because inadequate reporting in randomized clinical trials may complicate the interpretation and the application of findings to clinical care. OBJECTIVE To evaluate an automated reporting checklist generation tool that uses natural language processing (NLP), called CONSORT-NLP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This study used published journal articles as training, testing, and validation sets to develop, refine, and evaluate the CONSORT-NLP tool. Articles reporting randomized clinical trials were selected from 25 high-impact-factor journals under the following categories: (1) general and internal medicine, (2) oncology, and (3) cardiac and cardiovascular systems. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES For an evaluation of the performance of this tool, an accuracy metric defined as the number of correct assessments divided by all assessments was calculated. RESULTS The CONSORT-NLP tool uses the widely used Portable Document Format as an input file. Of the 37 CONSORT reporting items, 34 (92%) were included in the tool. Of these 34 reporting items, 30 were fully implemented; 28 (93%) of the fully implemented CONSORT reporting items had an accuracy of more than 90% for the validation set. The remaining 2 (7%) had an accuracy between 80% and 90% for the validation set. Two to 5 articles were selected from each of these journals for a total of 158 articles to establish a training set of 111 articles to train CONSORT-NLP for CONSORT reporting items, a testing set of 25 articles to refine CONSORT-NLP, and a validation set of 22 articles to assess the performance of CONSORT-NLP. The CONSORT-NLP tool used the Portable Document Format of the articles as input files. A CONSORT-NLP graphical user interface was built using Java in 2019. The time required to complete the CONSORT checklist manually vs using the CONSORT-NLP tool was compared for 30 articles. Two case studies for randomized clinical trials are provided as an illustration for the CONSORT-NLP tool. For the 30 articles investigated, CONSORT-NLP required a mean (SD) 23.0 (4.1) seconds, whereas the manual reviewer required a mean (SD) 11.9 (2.2), 22.6 (4.6), and 57.6 (7.1) minutes, for 3 reviewers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The CONSORT-NLP tool is designed to assist in the reporting of randomized clinical trials. Potential users of CONSORT-NLP include clinicians, researchers, and scientists who plan to publish a randomized trial study in a peer-reviewed journal. The use of CONSORT-NLP may help them save substantial time when generating the CONSORT checklist. This tool may also be useful for manuscript reviewers and journal editors who review these articles.

show abstract

Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals

Cited by 129 publications

References 29 publications

Reporting quality of randomized and non-randomized controlled trial abstracts from chicken research

Reporting quality of randomized and non-randomized controlled trial abstracts from chicken research

Mindestanforderungen an qualitativ hochwertige Berichte medizinischer Forschungsergebnisse

Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Tool to Generate the CONSORT Reporting Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About