Did an introduction of CONSORT for abstracts guidelines improve reporting quality of randomised controlled trials’ abstracts onHelicobacter pyloriinfection? Observational study

Abstract

ObjectiveTo determine abstracts’ adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) statement and to explore the factors associated with reporting quality.DesignAn observational study.SettingAbstracts of randomised controlled trials published between 2010 and 2019, found searching the MEDLINE database.ParticipantsA total of 451 abstracts of the clinical trials on Helicobacter pylori infections were included.Primary and secondary outcome measuresAbstracts’ reporting quality was determined by assessing their adherence to 17-item CONSORT-A checklist, with overall score being calculated as the sum of items that were adequately reported for each abstract. Additional factors that might influence the reporting quality of the abstracts were analysed, with univariate and multivariate linear regression used to determine how those factors influenced the overall reporting quality.ResultsIncluded abstracts had an overall median quality score of 8/17 (IQR 7–9). Large proportions of abstracts adequately reported interventions, participants, objectives, numbers randomised and conclusions (97.1, 99.3, 89.1. 94.7 and 98.4% of abstracts, respectively). Trial design, randomisation, blinding and funding were severely under-reported with only 8.0, 2.7, 11.0 and 2.0% of abstracts reporting each item. Overall quality scores for H. pylori abstracts were higher in association with CONSORT-A endorsement (B=5.698; 95% CI 1.781 to 9.615), pharmacological interventions (B=4.063; 95% CI 0.224 to 7.902), multicentre settings (B=5.057; 95% CI 2.370 to 7.743), higher numbers of participants (B=3.607; 95% CI 1.272 to 5.942), hospital settings (B=4.827; 95% CI 1.753 to 7.901) and longer abstracts (B=3.878; 95% CI 0.787 to 6.969 for abstracts with 251–300 words and B=7.404; 95% CI 3.930 to 10.878 for abstracts with more than 300 words).ConclusionsThe overall reporting quality of abstracts was inadequate. The endorsement of CONSORT-A guidelines by more journals might improve the standards of reporting.

Evaluation of Reporting Quality of Glaucoma Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts: Current Status and Future Perspectives

“…A number of authors showed that there was substandard reporting of funding in randomized controlled trial abstracts, also observed in our study, which could be misleading to the reader, as it is well-known that funding by industry could be associated with the positive results of randomized controlled trials [28,29]. Previous research has also demonstrated that inaccurate or omitted funding information could lead to the uncritical incorporation of those results into clinical practice [30].…”

Can ChatGPT assist authors with abstract writing in medical journals? Evaluating the quality of scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT and original abstracts

“…Firstly, the comparator original abstracts were from studies published in high impact journals which are known for rigorous peer review. The mean OQS of these abstracts was 66.06%, which is considerably higher than the scores, ranging between 32.6% and 54.1%, typically reported from a broader collection of journals [ 8 – 12 ]. Hence, with an average score of 43.83%, GPT 3.5 may have performed comparatively against a more diverse selection of abstracts.…”

“…66.06%, which is considerably higher than the scores, ranging between 32.6% and 54.1%, typically reported from a broader collection of journals [8][9][10][11][12]. Hence, with an average score of 43.83%, GPT 3.5 may have performed comparatively against a more diverse selection of abstracts.…”

Personalized Approach in Eradication of Helicobacter pylori Infection

“…Although tailored therapy is widely considered as superior to empirical therapy in first-line treatment, the overall results are diverse, in which some studies showed no difference at all between the two therapy groups. However, the heterogeneity of the study's protocols and reporting should be accounted for [52].…”