Professional medical writing support and the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals

Mills, Ira; Sheard, Catherine; Hays, Meredith; Douglas, Kevin; Winchester, Christopher C; Gattrell, William

doi:10.12688/f1000research.12268.1

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As far as we are aware, the topic of this review has not been reviewed in other medical areas by pairing full-text manuscripts and abstract-only reports. However, there have been other studies and reviews which have assessed the use of abstracts and abstract-only reports and their adherence to reporting standards and peer review, and have found them suboptimal5–9 17–20 A recent review on trustworthiness assessment for SRs found that 25% or RCTs included in 18 Cochrane SRs should not have been included in the reviews, due to issues around research governance, study feasibility and the plausibility of the results and reported baseline characteristics 21. The authors propose a formal trustworthiness assessment as part of the screening process and an inclusion criterion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been demonstrated in other medical fields that abstract-only reports have both methodological and outcome data reporting flaws compared with full-text manuscripts. Abstract-only reports have been found to report data that are inconsistent with or absent from the full-text manuscript’s body, even in large-circulation general medical journals 5–7. Abstract-only reports can be at risk of substandard peer review,8 9 which could mean abstract outcome data used in evidence synthesis could be inaccurate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prepublication abstract-only reports compared with full-text manuscripts for randomised controlled trials in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review

Sinopoulou,

Gordon,

Moran

et al. 2024

BMJ Open Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of key therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are often presented and available as abstracts for significant periods of time prior to full publication, often being employed to make strategic and clinical prescribing decisions. We compared the concordance of prepublication abstract-only reports and their respective full-text manuscripts.MethodsPairs of full-text manuscripts and their respective prepublication abstract-only reports for the same RCT outcomes, at the same time point of analysis were included. The RCTs were on treatments for IBD with full-text manuscripts published between 2010 and 2023.ResultsWe found 77 pairs of full-text manuscripts and their prepublication abstract-only reports. There were significant mismatches in the reporting of stated planned outcomes (65/77 matched, p<0.001) and primary outcomes reported in their results sections (67/77, p<0.001); trial registrations (34/65, p<0.001); the number of randomised participants (49/77, p=0.18); participants reaching end of study (21/71, p<0.001) and primary outcome data (40/73, p<0.001). Authors conclusions matched (75/77, p=0.157). Authors did not provide explicit or implied justifications for the absence or non-concordance for any of the above items.ConclusionsAbstract-only reports have consistent issues with both limited reporting of key information and significant differences in data when compared with their later full-text publications. These are not related to further recruitment of patients or word count limitations and are never explained. As abstracts are often used in guidelines, reviews and stakeholder decision-making on prescribing, caution in their use is strongly suggested. Further work is needed to enhance minimum reporting standards in abstract-only works and ensure consistency with final published papers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prepublication abstract-only reports compared with full-text manuscripts for randomised controlled trials in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review

Sinopoulou,

Gordon,

Moran

et al. 2024

BMJ Open Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The high level of acceptance of medical writing services of our respondents would allude to the benefits our cohort obtained from PMWS for a written manuscript. However, it is worth pointing out that there is a study that suggested that the use of professional writers did not improve the impact of the published article in terms of annual citations, article views, and altimetric score and did not show any increased adherence to CONSORT-A [ 33 , 34 ]. However, it must be noted that 12.3% of our respondents deemed it unethical to use PMWS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insights of Healthcare Professionals into Medical Writing Support at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia

AlOtaiby,

AlMaghlouth

et al. 2024

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims: The demand for medical writing is on the rise in academic and medical entities worldwide. However, a huge disparity in the perception of professional medical writing arises from inadequate education and regularity in service quality and potential ethical challenges. Hence, we aimed to examine the knowledge, attitude, and perception toward professional medical writing support (PMWS) of healthcare professionals at King Fahad Medical City (KFMC). Methods: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted using a questionnaire that was validated for its accuracy and clarity by an expert panel in academic integrity. The self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 200 healthcare professionals from a broad range of specialties throughout KFMC. The socio-demographic characteristics and healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions were recorded. The responses were quantitatively evaluated using a 5-point Likert Scale and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 25 (IBM, New York, United States). Results: 162 healthcare professionals in KFMC filled in the questionnaire completely. Most respondents agreed that it was acceptable for medical writers to help with writing publications and that they offered a valuable service. Concerning association with socio-demographic characteristics, the mean score of knowledge was found to be significantly related to those with age ≥45 years (p<0.001), PhD degree (p=0.044), >5 years of research experience (p<0.001), and being a faculty/consultant (p=0.005). No significant association was found with the mean total score of attitude. Participants having >5 years of research experience were found to have a higher significant level of perception (p=0.004). Conclusions: Our study highlights that PMWS is relatively well-utilized and perceived positively within KFMC. There is a need for further research and education of ethics regarding the use of PMWS.

show abstract

“…Dataset used per Hays et al 9 with the addition of column C for this post hoc analysis by professional medical writing support (yes: 1; no: 0). doi, 10.5256/f1000research.12268.d172437 23 …”

Section: Data Availabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional medical writing support and the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In articles reporting randomized controlled trials, professional medical writing support is associated with increased adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). We set out to determine whether professional medical writing support was also associated with improved adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts. Methods: Using data from a previously published cross-sectional study of 463 articles reporting randomized controlled trials published between 2011 and 2014 in five top medical journals, we determined the association between professional medical writing support and CONSORT for Abstracts items using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: The mean proportion of adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts items reported was similar with and without professional medical writing support (64.3% vs 66.5%, respectively; p=0.30). Professional medical writing support was associated with lower adherence to reporting study setting (relative risk [RR]; 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23–0.70), and higher adherence to disclosing harms/side effects (RR 2.04; 95% CI, 1.37–3.03) and funding source (RR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18–2.60). Conclusions: Although professional medical writing support was not associated with increased overall adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts, important aspects were improved with professional medical writing support, including reporting of adverse events and funding source. This study identifies areas to consider for improvement.

show abstract

Professional medical writing support and the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

Prepublication abstract-only reports compared with full-text manuscripts for randomised controlled trials in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review

Prepublication abstract-only reports compared with full-text manuscripts for randomised controlled trials in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review

Insights of Healthcare Professionals into Medical Writing Support at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia

Professional medical writing support and the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About