Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Lasers in Medical Science 8/2016

30.06.2016 | Original Article

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

verfasst von: Lu Jin, Fang Hua, Qiang Cao

Erschienen in: Lasers in Medical Science | Ausgabe 8/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals and investigate the association between potential predictors and reporting quality. The official online archives of four leading laser medicine journals were hand-searched to identify RCTs published in 2014 and 2015. A reporting quality assessment was carried out using the original 16-item CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts checklist. For each abstract, an overall CONSORT score (OCS) was calculated (score range, 0 to 16). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of reporting quality. Chi-square (or Fisher’s exact) tests were used to analyze the adequate reporting rate of each quality item by specialty area. A total of 129 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OCS was 4.5 (standard deviation, 1.3). Only three quality items (interventions, objective, conclusions) were reported adequately in most abstracts (>80 %). No abstract adequately reported results for the primary outcome, source of funding, and status of the trial. In addition, sufficient reporting of participants, outcome in the methods section, randomization, and trial registration was rare (<5 %). According to multivariable linear regression analysis, the specialty area of RCT abstracts was significantly associated with their reporting quality (P = 0.008). The reporting quality of RCT abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals is suboptimal. Joint efforts by authors, editors, and other stakeholders in the field to improve trial abstract reporting are needed.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Needleman I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moles DR, Worthington H (2008) Improving the clarity and transparency of reporting health research: a shared obligation and responsibility. J Dent Res 87(10):894–895CrossRefPubMed Needleman I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moles DR, Worthington H (2008) Improving the clarity and transparency of reporting health research: a shared obligation and responsibility. J Dent Res 87(10):894–895CrossRefPubMed
9.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Hua F, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Worthington H (2015) Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses. Eur J Orthod. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjv094 PubMed Hua F, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Worthington H (2015) Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses. Eur J Orthod. doi:10.​1093/​ejo/​cjv094 PubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Norman G, Streiner D (2008) Biostatistics: the bare essentials, 3rd edn. BC Decker Inc, Hamilton Norman G, Streiner D (2008) Biostatistics: the bare essentials, 3rd edn. BC Decker Inc, Hamilton
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Fleming PS, Buckley N, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Pandis N (2012) Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 142(4):451–458. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.05.013 CrossRef Fleming PS, Buckley N, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Pandis N (2012) Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 142(4):451–458. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ajodo.​2012.​05.​013 CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Faggion CM Jr, Giannakopoulos NN (2012) Quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading journals of periodontology and implant dentistry: a survey. J Periodontol 83(10):1251–1256. doi:10.1902/jop.2012.110609 CrossRefPubMed Faggion CM Jr, Giannakopoulos NN (2012) Quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading journals of periodontology and implant dentistry: a survey. J Periodontol 83(10):1251–1256. doi:10.​1902/​jop.​2012.​110609 CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Cui Q, Tian JH, Song XP, Yang KH (2014) Does the CONSORT checklist for abstracts improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials on clinical pathways? J Eval Clin Pract 20(6):827–833. doi:10.1111/jep.12200 CrossRefPubMed Cui Q, Tian JH, Song XP, Yang KH (2014) Does the CONSORT checklist for abstracts improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials on clinical pathways? J Eval Clin Pract 20(6):827–833. doi:10.​1111/​jep.​12200 CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Can OS, Yilmaz AA, Hasdogan M, Alkaya F, Turhan SC, Can MF, Alanoglu Z (2011) Has the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract reporting? A survey of four high-profile anaesthesia journals. Eur J Anaesthesiol 28(7):485–492. doi:10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833fb96f CrossRefPubMed Can OS, Yilmaz AA, Hasdogan M, Alkaya F, Turhan SC, Can MF, Alanoglu Z (2011) Has the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract reporting? A survey of four high-profile anaesthesia journals. Eur J Anaesthesiol 28(7):485–492. doi:10.​1097/​EJA.​0b013e32833fb96f​ CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Wieland LS, Robinson KA, Dickersin K (2012) Understanding why evidence from randomised clinical trials may not be retrieved from Medline: comparison of indexed and non-indexed records. BMJ 344:d7501. doi:10.1136/bmj.d7501 CrossRefPubMed Wieland LS, Robinson KA, Dickersin K (2012) Understanding why evidence from randomised clinical trials may not be retrieved from Medline: comparison of indexed and non-indexed records. BMJ 344:d7501. doi:10.​1136/​bmj.​d7501 CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Higgins JPT, Altman D, Sterne JAC (2011) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011], The Cochrane Collaboration Higgins JPT, Altman D, Sterne JAC (2011) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011], The Cochrane Collaboration
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289(4):454–465CrossRefPubMed Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289(4):454–465CrossRefPubMed
27.
Metadaten
Titel
Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines
verfasst von
Lu Jin
Fang Hua
Qiang Cao
Publikationsdatum
30.06.2016
Verlag
Springer London
Erschienen in
Lasers in Medical Science / Ausgabe 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0268-8921
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-604X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-016-2018-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2016

Lasers in Medical Science 8/2016 Zur Ausgabe