There is still room for improvement in the completeness of abstract reporting according to the PRISMA-A checklist: a cross-sectional study on systematic reviews in periodontology

Background To evaluate the completeness of reporting abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) before and after the publication of the PRISMA-A checklist in 2013 and to assess if an association exists between abstract characteristics and the completeness of reporting. Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the PubMed and Scopus databases in March 2020. The search focused on the SRs of evaluations of interventions published since 2002 in the field of periodontology. The abstracts of the selected SRs were divided into two groups before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist in 2013, and compliance with the 12 items reported in the checklist was evaluated by three calibrated evaluators. Results A set of 265 abstracts was included in the study. The total score before (mean score, 53.78%; 95% CI, 51.56–55.90%) and after (mean score, 56.88%; 95% CI, 55.39–58.44%) the publication of the PRISMA-A statement exhibited a statistically significant improvement (P = 0.012*). Nevertheless, only the checklist items included studies and synthesis of the results displayed a statistically significant change after guideline publication. The total PRISMA-A score was higher in the meta-analysis group and in articles authored by more than four authors. Conclusions The impact of the PRISMA-A was statistically significant, but the majority of the items did not improve after its introduction. The editors and referees of periodontal journals should promote adherence to the checklist to improve the quality of the reports and provide readers with better insight into the characteristics of published studies.

Denunciar o exercício ilegal do profissional de educação física: não deveria ser um dever ético para não se tornar um X9

INTRODUÇÃO: O tema ética quase sempre leva a sociedade a dilemas que exigem profundas reflexões com respostas às mais diversas situações com as quais é confrontada. OBJETIVO: Propôs-se refletir sobre os mandamentos do código de ética do profissional de Educação Física em denunciar o exercício irregular/ilegal da profissão e a visão que a sociedade guarda para com quem é um denunciante. MÉTODOS: Buscou-se inicialmente discorrer sobre a ética, a moral e a legalidade positivada na legislação brasileira que consequentemente serve de base para a formação do Código de Ética Profissional. RESULTADOS: Trouxe à tona algo que pode parecer motivo de reclamação por parte dos Conselhos Profissionais, qual seja, a falta de denunciantes para que se possa efetivamente realizar a devida fiscalização e consequente penalização pelas infrações realizadas. Ainda que não seja objeto do presente estudo, optou-se por descrever os artigos, para poder demonstrar que as penas tendem favorecer à criminalidade, mesmo que em menor potencial ofensivo, permitem inferir que o crime compensa. A pessoa faz uma aposta, vai trabalhar e ganhar o seu salário, se lhe autuarem, lhe autuaram! CONCLUSÃO: Considerando que o exercício ilegal da profissão é uma contravenção penal de menor potencial ofensivo infere-se que vale à pena exercer a profissão de forma ilegal até ser denunciado ou fiscalizado, pois não haverá maiores consequências que prestar serviço comunitário e pagar cestas básicas; havendo a possibilidade de que nada disso venha a se concretizar. Neste caso, admite-se que a contravenção penal ainda compensa ser praticada no Brasil no caso do exercício ilegal da profissão de Educação Física. ABSTRACT. Reporting the illegal exercise of the physical education professional: it should not be an ethical duty to not become an X9. BACKGROUND: The ethics theme almost always leads society to dilemmas that demand deep reflections with answers to the most diverse situations with which it is confronted. OBJECTIVE: It was proposed to reflect on the commandments of the code of ethics of the Physical Education professional in denouncing the irregular/illegal exercise of the profession and the vision that society holds towards those who are a whistleblower. METHODS: We initially sought to discuss the ethics, morals and legality established in Brazilian legislation, which consequently serves as the basis for the formation of the Code of Professional Ethics. RESULTS: it brought up something that may seem to be a reason for complaint by the Professional Councils, namely, the lack of whistleblowers so that it can effectively carry out the due inspection and consequent penalty for the infractions carried out. Although it is not the subject of the present study, it was decided to describe the articles, in order to demonstrate that the penalties tend to favor criminality, even if with less offensive potential, they allow to infer that the crime pays off. The person makes a bet, goes to work and earns his salary, if they charge him, they charge him! CONCLUSION: Considering that the illegal exercise of the profession is a criminal offense with less offensive potential, it is inferred that it is worth exercising the profession illegally until it is denounced or inspected, as there will be no greater consequences than providing community service and paying basic food baskets; with the possibility that none of this will materialize. In this case, it is admitted that the criminal offense still pays off to be practiced in Brazil in the case of illegal exercise of the Physical Education profession.

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews are published on an annual basis. Although perusal of the full text of articles is preferable, abstracts are sometimes relied upon to guide clinical decisions. Despite this, the abstracts of systematic reviews have historically been poorly reported. We evaluated the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts within hand and wrist pathology literature. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology using the 12-item PRISMA-A checklist to assess abstract reporting quality. Results: A total of 114 abstracts were included. Most related to fracture (38%) or arthritis (17%) management. Forty-seven systematic reviews (41%) included meta-analysis. Mean PRISMA-A score was 3.6/12 with Cochrane reviews having the highest mean score and hand-specific journals having the lowest. Abstracts longer than 300 words (mean difference [MD]: 1.43, 95% CI [0.74, 2.13]; p <0.001) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MD: 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.22]; p = 0.034) were associated with higher scores. Unstructured abstracts were associated with lower scores (MD: –0.65, 95% CI [–1.28, –0.02]; p = 0.044). A limitation of this study is the possible exclusion of relevant studies that were not published in the English language. Conclusion: Abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to hand and wrist pathology have been suboptimally reported as assessed by the PRISMA-A checklist. Improvements in reporting quality could be achieved by endorsement of PRISMA-A guidelines by authors and journals, and reducing constraints on abstract length.

The Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts in Plastic Surgery

Background When evaluating randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinicians will often refer to the abstract for an initial assessment of the results and to determine whether a full-text review is warranted. Objectives This project aims to assess the reporting quality of RCT abstracts published within the top 5 plastic surgery journals utilizing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts checklist. Methods A computerized database search of OVID MEDLINE was performed. All primary RCTs published within the top 5 plastic surgery journals (by 2016 International Scientific Indexing impact factor) from 2011 to 2018 were included. Two reviewers, blinded to journal and author, independently and in duplicate, scored abstracts employing the 16-item CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Results This review identified 126 RCTs that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Included studies were distributed across 5 journals: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (n = 83), JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery (n = 8), Aesthetic Surgery Journal (n = 33), Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery (n = 2), and the Journal of Hand Surgery–European Volume (n = 0). Mean overall item adherence across all abstracts was 7 (SD ± 2). The most poorly reported items were “trial registration,” “method of randomization,” and “source of trial funding” and appeared in 4%, 2.4%, and 0% of abstracts, respectively. Conclusions There is limited adherence to the CONSORT for abstracts checklist among RCT abstracts published within the top 5 plastic surgery journals. Given the reliance of clinicians on abstract reporting, omitting essential trial details can lead to an inaccurate interpretation of trial results and improper application in clinical practice. Active endorsement of the CONSORT for abstracts checklist is required to improve the quality of RCT abstract reporting.

The quality of reporting RCT abstracts in four major orthodontics journals for the period 2012–2017

Introduction: Clear reporting of the abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) facilitates the assessment and identification of such trials. Aim: To assess whether authors in the orthodontic field of research currently report RCT abstracts adequately, as defined by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Design: An observational retrospective study. Methods: Electronic searches with supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in (1) American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics ( AJO-DO), (2) Angle Orthodontist ( AO), (3) European Journal of Orthodontics ( EJO) and (4) Journal of Orthodontics ( JO) for the period from January 2012 to December 2017. The completeness of the abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified CONSORT for abstract statement checklist. Results: A total of 3678 articles were retrieved, but only 224 RCT abstracts were identified and assessed. A high volume of RCTs were published with either the AO (39%) or AJO-DO (32%); the majority of the RCT abstracts (93.6%) were structured. The mean overall abstract reporting quality score was 69.1% (95% confidence interval = 67.5–70.7). In relation to individual quality items, the majority of the RCT abstracts (range = 96–100%) demonstrated clear reporting of the author/contact details, trial design, participants, interventions, objectives, outcomes, number of participants randomised to each group, recruitment, results and conclusions. However, reporting of the title, trial registration, funding and number of analysed participants were only moderately adequate and reporting of the assessment of blinding and adverse events were the least-reported items in the identified abstracts. Conclusions: As several CONSORT reporting items were poorly reported, it is the responsibility of authors, referees and editors alike to ensure that the CONSORT guidelines are followed.