Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review

Abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in leading critical care nursing journals against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist and to identify variables related with abstract reporting quality.DesignDescriptive methodological quality review.Data sourceWe searched the PubMed database and the websites of each included journal.Eligibility criteriaWe included RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2021 in the first 11 Scopus-ranking (2021) critical care nursing journals that reported the results of RCTs in English that referred to the care of adult patients with acute/critical illness or their relatives and/or caregivers and conducted in ICUs.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified 17-item checklist directly derived from CONSORT-A. For the primary outcome, each item was evaluated whether it was adequately reported or not and descriptive statistics were reported. An overall score was calculated by summing the results of all items and multivariate linear regression was conducted to detect potential predictors.ResultsSeventy-eight RCT abstracts were included in this review. The items with the highest CONSORT-A adherence were authors, objective, conclusion, participants, interventions and outcome. The randomisation item had the lowest CONSORT-A adherence, followed by trial registration, funding source, harms or side effects, recruitment, blinding and outcome results. The average CONSORT-A score was 8.5±1.5 points (of the maximum 17.5 points). Multivariate analysis indicated that the categorised word score and publication date were positively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score, while the first author’s country being in Asia was negatively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score.ConclusionsThe 78 RCT abstracts showed poor overall adherence to CONSORT-A. The results indicate that the methodological reporting quality of RCT abstracts in critical care nursing journals requires improvement to facilitate assessment of the applicability and relevance of the results reported.

Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts on Aesthetic Use of Botulinum Toxin: How Much Do Abstracts Actually Tell Us?

“…Moreover, a statistically significant higher overall quality score was observed in studies published in the pre-CONSORT period. Our findings align with prior studies indicating suboptimal adherence to the CONSORT guidelines for abstracts across various journals and medical disciplines, including dermatology and plastic surgery [21][22][23][24][25]28,29,34,36,37]. The purpose of adopting the CONSORT guidelines was to improve the quality of reporting, as it is necessary for the detailed translation of study results to clinicians' daily work.…”

“…Abstracts play a significant role in the reporting of RCTs. They serve as a concise summary, containing essential study information that enables readers to quickly evaluate the study's originality, methodology, and results [21]. As the first section often read in a publication, the abstract significantly influences the readers' decision to proceed with reading further [21,22].…”

“…They serve as a concise summary, containing essential study information that enables readers to quickly evaluate the study's originality, methodology, and results [21]. As the first section often read in a publication, the abstract significantly influences the readers' decision to proceed with reading further [21,22]. For health professionals, abstracts serve as a primary source of information about a trial, influencing their decision-making in patient management.…”

“…By adhering to these guidelines, authors can optimize the reporting of RCT abstracts, thereby facilitating better comprehension, evaluation, and application of trial results in medical practice. Studies conducted after the publication of the CONSORT guidelines for abstracts have examined the quality of published abstracts in various branches of medicine, including dermatology and plastic surgery, and mainly reported insufficient reporting quality [21][22][23][24][25][28][29][30]. Given the increasing demand for botulinum toxin treatments, the quality of published RCTs becomes essential.…”

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

“…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.…”