Abstracts Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Ten Highest-ranking Nursing Journals: Improvement in the Quality Since CONSORT Extension for Abstracts

Background: When evaluating randomized controlled trials(RCTs), nurses usually refer to the abstracts to make an initial assessment of the results and to determine whether a full-text review is required. Aims: To determine whether the publication of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts resulted in an improvement in the abstracts report of nursing RCTs. Methods: This research was a cross-sectional study. Web of Science was searched. 200 RCTs were randomly selected from ten high-impact nursing journals. CONSORT-A checklist was used to assess abstracts. Total score on checklists, comparison on total scores between two periods, and effect factors were analyzed. Results: Mean overall adherence across all abstracts was 8.85±2.18 which significantly improved with the time span. The most poorly reported items were ‘harms’, ‘outcomes in method’, and ‘method of blinding’ which appeared in 0, 8.5% and 16.5% of abstracts, respectively. Recent year of publication(P=0.014), Journal impact factor (P=0.000), multiple center trial (P=0.000), and structured abstract (P=0.008) were associated significantly with a high reporting quality. Conclusions: Although not defined all of abstracts in nursing area, our sample reflect the general trend that there was limited adherence to the CONSORT-A among abstracts in nursing literature. It is necessary to promote and actively apply the CONSORT-A guideline.

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.

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study

ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at a leading international conference in sleep medicine (the SLEEP Annual Meeting), and to investigate the association between potential predictors and the reporting quality of trial abstracts in this field.DesignCross-sectional, research on research study.MethodsA handsearch of the 2016–2018 SLEEP Annual Meeting abstract books was carried out to identify abstracts describing RCTs. Quality of reporting was assessed with the original 17-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of reporting quality. In addition, risk ratios were used to analyse the adequate reporting rate of each quality item by type of intervention and funding status.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe overall quality score (OQS, range 0–17) in accordance with the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (primary outcome), and the adequate reporting rate of each checklist item (secondary outcome).ResultsA total of 176 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OQS was 5.53 (95% CI 5.30 to 5.76). Only three quality items (objective,conclusionsandfunding) were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75%). None of the abstracts adequately reportedauthors,randomisationoroutcome in the results section. According to the multivariable analysis, pharmacological interventions (p=0.018) and funding from the industry (p=0.025) were significantly associated with better reporting quality.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at SLEEP Annual Meetings was suboptimal. Pharmacological intervention and funding from industry were significant predictors of better reporting quality. Joint efforts by authors and conference committees are needed to enhance the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at sleep medicine conferences, and thereby reduce relevant research waste in this field.

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

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.

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

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.

Reporting quality of randomized and non-randomized controlled trial abstracts from chicken research

In publication of a controlled trial article from health science research, the abstract is an important part that readers usually read first and then decide whether to read the whole article; therefore, information provided in the abstract should be adequate. The CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) for Abstracts checklist has been developed and used as a guideline for authors to prepare their manuscripts. This checklist has also been used as a tool to evaluate published abstracts. The objectives of this study were to evaluate reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) and non-RCT abstracts from chicken research and to determine factors associated with the reporting quality. We searched PubMed for RCT and non-RCT abstracts involving chicken research published between 2006 and 2015. The included abstracts were evaluated using the modified CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The primary outcome was a mean overall quality score (OQS), which, for each abstract, was a sum of items reported in the modified CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. In addition, some pre-specified factors were evaluated for their association with the reporting quality using simple and multiple linear regression analyses. A total of 949 abstracts (n=262 for RCT and n=687 for non-RCT abstracts) were included and evaluated. Although OQS was significantly greater in RCT than in non-RCT abstracts (mean ± SD, 6.7 ± 0.9 vs 3.3 ± 1.1; P-value<0.001), both mean scores were still less than half of the full score of 15. Only 2 items—objective and conclusions—were adequately reported (>80%) in both types of the abstracts. Items concerning trial design, participants, interventions, randomization, and number randomized were adequately reported only in the RCT abstracts. In contrast, items concerning the study as randomized in the title, clearly defined primary outcome, blinding, numbers analyzed, estimated effect size and its precision for the primary outcome, trial registration, and funding were not reported or reported less than 5% in both RCT and non-RCT abstracts. In this study, 4 factors—year of publication, number of trials reported, number of experimental groups reported, and sample size reported—were associated with OQS. That is, abstracts with higher OQS were published more recently, reported a single trial rather than multiple trials, reported number of experimental groups rather than not reported, and reported sample size rather than not reported. These factors explained about 37.5% of the variance of OQS. In conclusion, reporting quality of RCT and non-RCT abstracts from chicken research was suboptimal. Therefore, efforts especially the development of specific guidelines based on the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist should be made for reporting controlled trial abstracts from chicken research to improve the transparency, completeness, and sufficiently detailed of reporting.

Reporting quality of randomized and non-randomized controlled trial abstracts from chicken research

In publication of a controlled trial article from health science research, the abstract is an important part that readers usually read first and then decide whether to read the whole article; therefore, information provided in the abstract should be adequate. The CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) for Abstracts checklist has been developed and used as a guideline for authors to prepare their manuscripts. This checklist has also been used as a tool to evaluate published abstracts. The objectives of this study were to evaluate reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) and non-RCT abstracts from chicken research and to determine factors associated with the reporting quality. We searched PubMed for RCT and non-RCT abstracts involving chicken research published between 2006 and 2015. The included abstracts were evaluated using the modified CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The primary outcome was a mean overall quality score (OQS), which, for each abstract, was a sum of items reported in the modified CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. In addition, some pre-specified factors were evaluated for their association with the reporting quality using simple and multiple linear regression analyses. A total of 949 abstracts (n=262 for RCT and n=687 for non-RCT abstracts) were included and evaluated. Although OQS was significantly greater in RCT than in non-RCT abstracts (mean ± SD, 6.7 ± 0.9 vs 3.3 ± 1.1; P-value<0.001), both mean scores were still less than half of the full score of 15. Only 2 items—objective and conclusions—were adequately reported (>80%) in both types of the abstracts. Items concerning trial design, participants, interventions, randomization, and number randomized were adequately reported only in the RCT abstracts. In contrast, items concerning the study as randomized in the title, clearly defined primary outcome, blinding, numbers analyzed, estimated effect size and its precision for the primary outcome, trial registration, and funding were not reported or reported less than 5% in both RCT and non-RCT abstracts. In this study, 4 factors—year of publication, number of trials reported, number of experimental groups reported, and sample size reported—were associated with OQS. That is, abstracts with higher OQS were published more recently, reported a single trial rather than multiple trials, reported number of experimental groups rather than not reported, and reported sample size rather than not reported. These factors explained about 37.5% of the variance of OQS. In conclusion, reporting quality of RCT and non-RCT abstracts from chicken research was suboptimal. Therefore, efforts especially the development of specific guidelines based on the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist should be made for reporting controlled trial abstracts from chicken research to improve the transparency, completeness, and sufficiently detailed of reporting.