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

Jin, Lü; Hua, Fang; Cao, Qiang

doi:10.1007/s10103-016-2018-4

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study showed that the quality of reporting in RCTs abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease was suboptimal. The inadequate reporting of abstracts was in line with previous studies on dentistry ( 10 - 12 ), as well as on other specialties ( 13 - 15 ). These results manifested a lack of adherence to the CONSORT guidelines for RCT abstracts.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…In terms of title, the deficient reporting of randomization may lead to irrelevant to database retrieval and omissions, leading to biases in systematic reviews. In the present study, 64.7% of abstracts titles could be identified as randomized, which was remarkably better than those of previous studies ( 13 , 16 ). In contrast, 13.2% of abstracts contained no information about “random”, neither in the title nor in the body of the abstract.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years

Xie¹,

Qin²,

Gu³

et al. 2020

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence and are likely to influence clinical decision-making. This study evaluated the reporting quality of RCT abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease and assessed the associated factors. Material and Methods The Pubmed database was searched for periodontal RCTs published in Science Citation Indexed (SCI) dental journals from 2010/01/01 to 2019/07/17. Information was extracted from the abstracts according to a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline checklist. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis and the statistical associations were examined using the linear regression analysis ( P <0.05). Results This study retrieved 1715 articles and 249 of them were finally included. The average overall CONSORT score was 15.6 ± 3.4, which represented 40.9% (±0.6) of CONSORT criteria filling. The reporting rate of some items (trial design, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis or per-protocol analysis, harms, registration) was less than 30%. The adequate reporting rate of some items (participants, randomization, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis or per protocol analysis) was no more than 4%. None of the abstracts reported funding. According to the multivariable linear regression results, number of authors ( P =0.030), word count ( P <0.001), continent ( P =0.003), structured format ( P <0.001), type of periodontal disease ( P <0.001) and international collaboration ( P =0.023) have a significant association with reporting quality. Conclusions The quality of RCT abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease in SCI dental journals remained suboptimal. More efforts should be made to improve RCT abstracts reporting quality. Key words: Abstracts, RCT, drug therapy, periodontal disease, CONSORT, reporting quality assessment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years

Xie¹,

Qin²,

Gu³

et al. 2020

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among previous studies that used the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist to assess RCT abstract reporting, five have taken into account the structure of abstracts as a confounding variable [ 24 – 28 ]. In four of these studies, structure was analysed in two categories (unstructured vs. structured): 3 studies found that the reporting quality was significantly higher in structured abstracts, but not significantly higher anymore when other explanatory variables were accounted for [ 24 – 26 ]; while in the other study, authors found no significant difference between structured and unstructured abstracts in univariable analysis [ 27 ]. In a more recent study, Bigna et al [ 28 ] categorised abstract structure into IMRaD, 8-heading and ‘one-block’.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, differences in results could also be attributed to different sources of abstracts. Our study included abstracts from recent issues of leading general medical/internal medicine journals, while those previous studies assessed abstracts from other medical specialty journals [ 26 , 27 ] or certain specific areas [ 24 , 25 , 28 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, abstracts are often the only part of medical research articles that readers have access to, especially those in low-income countries and resource-poor institutions [ 2 , 3 ]. However, the reporting quality of RCT abstracts published in medical journals has been suboptimal [ 24 , 26 – 28 , 31 ]. A recent time series analysis showed that, according to the current trend of improvement, it would take about 50 years for RCT abstracts in major paediatric journals to report all items required in the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist [ 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structure formats of randomised controlled trial abstracts: a cross-sectional analysis of their current usage and association with methodology reporting

Hua

Walsh

Glenny

et al. 2018

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe reporting of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts is of vital importance. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the association between structure format and RCT abstracts’ quality of methodology reporting, informed by the current requirement and usage of structure formats by leading general medical/internal medicine journals (secondary objective).MethodsA two-part cross-sectional study. First, through hand searches, we identified all RCTs published in the top-50 high-impact general medical/internal medicine journals during July–December 2015 (n = 370), and retrieved the ‘instructions to authors’ of these journals. From these, we extracted the actual usage of structure formats and headings, as well as relevant journal policies. Then, after a pilot study and sample size calculation, we assessed the methodology reporting quality of 176 IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) and 165 HS (Highly Structured) RCT abstracts sampled from 33 of the 50 selected journals, using a 9-item checklist developed based on the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines (primary outcome: overall quality score, OQS; score range 0 to 9).Results88% (324/370) of all identified RCT abstracts were structured, among which 66% (215/324) used the IMRaD format and 34% (109/324) used HS. According to journals’ ‘instructions to authors’, 48% (24/50) journals required IMRaD, 32% (16/50) required HS, 8% (4/50) required unstructured, while the rest did not state any requirement on structure format. According to generalised estimation equation analysis adjusting for potential confounders and clustering effects, the OQS of HS abstracts was 0.5 (95% CI 0.1 to 1.0, p = 0.028) higher than IMRaD abstracts. More HS abstracts reported study setting (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 1.7 to 10.0; p = 0.001), definition of the main outcome measure (2.5; 1.3 to 4.9; p = 0.006) and the time point for main outcome assessment (3.0; 1.5 to 6.2; p = 0.002), whereas more IMRaD abstracts described the unit of randomisation (0.4; 0.3 to 0.8; p = 0.004).ConclusionsFor RCT abstracts, the IMRaD format is more frequently used and required by leading general medical/internal medicine journals than the HS format. Abstracts in the HS format report trial methodology more completely than those in the IMRaD format.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0469-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials related to implant dentistry

Menne

Pandis

Faggion

2022

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The abstract of a scientific article should be accurate and detailed in summarizing the information of the full-text because it is the first article section the reader examines. This study assessed the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts related to implant dentistry and examined associations between reporting quality and study characteristics.Methods: On January 17, 2021, we searched the PubMed database for abstracts of RCTs published in high-ranked periodontology and implant dentistry journals from 2016 to 2021. For each abstract, we assessed if the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist items were reported completely, partially, or not reported. An Overall CONSORT Score (OCS) and relative score (OCS%) were calculated as a proxy to checklist adherance. Linear regression models were fitted to analyze associations between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting. Results: Four hundred and thirty-four of the 678 retrieved abstracts were eligible for inclusion. The mean OCS and OCS% were 6.23 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.56) or 41.5% (SD = 10.4), respectively. Items most frequently reported included the title (n = 434; 100%), intended intervention (n = 425; 98%), and conclusions (n = 430; 99%). Participant allocation, masking, and trial registration were rarely completely reported with frequencies of 2%, 3%, and 4%, respectively.We found that number of authors, continent, type of RCT, number of centers, report of ethical approval, funding, structure, and length of the abstract were associated with reporting quality. Conclusion:The reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal. Journals should start to incorporate and endorse the use of the CONSORT-A guidelines in their instructions to authors to enhance reporting quality.

show abstract

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

Cited by 18 publications

References 28 publications

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years

Structure formats of randomised controlled trial abstracts: a cross-sectional analysis of their current usage and association with methodology reporting

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials related to implant dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About