Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts: survey of leading general dental journals

Exploration and evaluation of reporting quality of randomised controlled trials on blended learning in medical education

Aims/Background Blended learning has been a commonly adopted teaching mode in the medical education community in recent years. Many studies have shown that the blended learning mode is superior to the traditional teaching mode. Nonetheless, pinpointing the specific advantages provided by blended teaching methods is challenging, since multiple elements influence their effectiveness. This study aimed to investigate the reliability of the conclusions of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on blended learning in medical education by assessing their quality, and to provide suggestions for future related studies. Methods Two investigators searched PUBMED and EMBASE, and assessed RCTs related to medical blended learning published from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2021. The analysis of the overall quality of each report was based on the 2010 consolidated standard of reporting trials (CONSORT) Statement applying a 28-point overall quality score. We also conducted a multivariate assessment including year of publication, region of the trial, journal, impact factor, sample size, and the primary outcome. Results A total of 22 RCTs closely relevant to medical blended learning were eventually selected for study. The results demonstrated that half of the studies failed to explicitly describe at least 34% of the items in the 2010 CONSORT Statement. Medical blended learning is an emerging new teaching mode, with 95.45% of RCTs published since 2010. However, many issues that we consider crucial were not satisfactorily addressed in the selected RCTs. Conclusion Although the 2010 CONSORT Statement was published more than a decade ago, the quality of RCTs remains unsatisfactory. Some important items were inadequately reported in many RCTs such as sample size, blinding, and concealment. We encourage researchers who focus on the effects of blended learning in medical education to incorporate the guidelines in the 2010 CONSORT Statement when designing and conducting relevant research. Researchers, reviewers, and editors also need to work together to improve the quality of relevant RCTs in accordance with the requirements of the 2010 CONSORT Statement.

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in pediatric dentistry: reporting quality and spin

BACKGROUND

Abstracts provide readers a concise and readily accessible information of the trials. However, poor reporting quality and spin (misrepresentation of research findings) can lead to an overestimation in trial validity. This methodological study aimed to assess the reporting quality and spin among randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in pediatric dentistry.

METHODS

We hand-searched RCTs in five leading pediatric dental journals between 2015 and 2021. Reporting quality in each abstract was assessed using the original 16-item CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality. We evaluated the presence and characteristics of spin only in abstracts of parallel-group RCTs with nonsignificant primary outcomes according to pre-determined spin strategies.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-two abstracts were included in reporting quality evaluation. The mean overall quality score was 4.57 (SD, 0.103; 95% CI, 4.36-4.77; score range, 1-10). Only interventions, objective, and conclusions were adequately reported. Use of flow diagram (P < 0.001) was the only significant factor of higher reporting quality. Of the 51 RCT abstracts included for spin analysis, spin was identified in 40 abstracts (78.4%), among which 23 abstracts (45.1%) had spin in the Results section and 39 in the Conclusions Sect. (76.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in pediatric dentistry is suboptimal and the prevalence of spin is high. Joint efforts are needed to improve reporting quality and minimize spin.

Reporting Quality of the Abstracts for Randomized Controlled Trials in Pediatric Dentistry

OBJECTIVES

 The purpose of this study is to systematically appraise the reporting quality of abstracts for randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in pediatric dentistry using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts and to analyze the relationship between the characteristics of the RCT to the quality of abstracts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 RCTs published in Pediatric Dentistry were retrieved from the PubMed database from 2016 to 2021. The quality of abstracts was appraised using CONSORT for abstracts checklist by two independent reviewers.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

 In descriptive statistics, frequency and percentage analysis were used for categorical variables, whereas mean and standard deviation were used for continuous variables. To find the significant difference between the bivariate samples in independent groups, Mann-Whitney U test was employed. Multivariate analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U tests. Probability value of p-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

 Two hundred abstracts were included in the study. All the abstracts adequately reported the "objective" item, whereas only 2 and 4% of abstracts adequately addressed "randomization" and "harms" items, respectively. A significant relationship was observed between the continent of first author/corresponding author, number of authors, impact factor, adherence to CONSORT guidelines, word count, focus of study, and a priori protocol registration to the quality of abstracts (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

 The abstracts of the RCT included in the study did not adequately follow the CONSORT for abstract guidelines. Adherence to the reporting guidelines would improve the overall reporting quality of abstracts of RCT published in Pediatric Dentistry. The overall mean score of the abstracts was 6.80 out of 15 indicating that the abstracts did not adequately follow the CONSORT for abstract reporting guidelines.

Evaluating the completeness of the reporting of abstracts since the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts: an evaluation of randomized controlled trial in ten nursing journals

BACKGROUND

As a practice-oriented discipline, strict adherence to reporting guidelines is particularly important in randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts of the nursing area. However, whether abstract reports after 2010 have complied with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) guideline is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether the publication of CONSORT-A has improved abstract reporting in nursing and explores the factors associated with better adherence to the guidelines.

METHODS

We searched the Web of Science for 200 RCTs randomly selected from ten nursing journals. We used a data extraction form based on CONSORT-A, including 16 items, to analyze the reporting adherence to the guidelines, and the reporting rate of each item and the total score for each abstract were used to indicate adherence and overall quality score (OQS, range 0-16). A comparison of the total mean score between the two periods was made, and affecting factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the studies we included, 48 abstracts were published pre-CONSORT-A whereas 152 post-CONSORT-A. The overall mean score for reporting adherence to 16 items was 7.41 ± 2.78 and 9.16 ± 2.76 for pre- and post-CONSORT-A, respectively (total score: 16). The most poorly reported items are "harms (0%)," "outcomes in method (8.5%)," "randomization (25%)," and "blinding (6.5%)." Items including the year of publication, impact factor, multiple center trial, word count, and structured abstract are significantly associated with higher adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The adherence to abstract reporting in nursing literature has improved since the CONSORT-A era, but the overall completeness of RCT abstracts remained low. A joint effort by authors, editors, and journals is necessary to improve reporting quality of RCT abstracts.

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

OBJECTIVES

To 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.

DESIGN

Descriptive methodological quality review.

DATA SOURCE

We searched the PubMed database and the websites of each included journal.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We 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 SYNTHESIS

Two 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.

RESULTS

Seventy-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.

CONCLUSIONS

The 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.

'Spin' among abstracts of randomised controlled trials in sleep medicine: A research-on-research study

STUDY OBJECTIVES

'Spin', using reporting strategies to distort study results, can mislead readers of medical research. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of 'spin' among randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in sleep medicine journals, and to identify factors associated with its presence and severity.

METHODS

The search for RCTs published between 2010 and 2020 were conducted in seven reputable journals of sleep medicine. Abstracts of RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes were included and analysed for 'spin', according to pre-determined 'spin' strategies. Chi-square tests or logistic regression analyses were performed to detect the association between characteristics of included abstracts and the presence and severity of 'spin'.

RESULTS

A total of 114 RCT abstracts were included in this study, of which 89 (78.1%) were identified as having at least one type of 'spin' strategy. Sixty-six abstracts (57.9%) had 'spin' in the Results section, 82 (71.9%) abstracts presented with 'spin' in the Conclusions section. The presence of 'spin' varied significantly among RCTs based on the different categories of research area (P=0.047) and the statistician involvement (P=0.045). Furthermore, research area (P=0.019) and funding status (P=0.033) were significant factors associated with the severity of 'spin'.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of 'spin' is high among RCT abstracts in sleep medicine. This raise the need for researchers, editors and other stakeholders to be aware of the issue of 'spin' and make joint efforts to eliminate it in future publications.

Time to Publication for Randomized Clinical Trials Presented as Abstracts at Three Gastroenterology and Hepatology Conferences in 2017

Background & Aims

Results of randomized clinical trials are often first presented as conference abstracts, but these abstracts may be difficult to find, and trial results included in the abstract may not be followed by subsequent journal publications. In a review of abstracts submitted to eight major medical and surgical conferences in 2017, we identified 237 abstracts reporting primary results of randomized clinical trials accepted for presentation at three major gastroenterology and hepatology conferences. The aims of this new analysis were to determine the publication rate for these abstracts and the proportion of publications that included trial registration numbers in the publication abstract.

Methods

Clinical trial registries, PubMed, Europe PMC, and Google Scholar were searched through November 1, 2021, for publications reporting trial results for the selected abstracts. Publications were reviewed to determine if they included a trial registration number and if the registration number was in the abstract.

Results

Publications were found for 157 abstracts (66%) within four years of the conference. Publications were found more frequently for the 194 abstracts reporting results of registered trials (144, 74%) than for the 43 abstracts reporting unregistered trials (13, 30%), but only 67% of these 144 publications included the registration number in the publication abstract. Ten unpublished trials had summary results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions

Clinical trial results could be more accessible if all trials were registered, authors included registration numbers in both conference and journal abstracts, and journal editors required the inclusion of registration numbers in publication abstracts for registered clinical trials.

THE REPORTING QUALITY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ABSTRACTS IN LEADING GENERAL DENTAL JOURNALS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts published in leading general dental journals according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) guidelines, and to identify factors associated with overall reporting quality.

METHODS

We identified SR abstracts published in 10 leading general dental journals and assessed their reporting quality. For each abstract, an overall reporting score (ORS, range: 0-13) was calculated. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated to compare the reporting quality of abstracts in Pre-PRISMA (2011-2012) and Post-PRISMA (2017-2018) periods. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality.

RESULTS

A total of 104 eligible abstracts were included. The mean ORS was 5.59 (SD = 1.48) and 6.97 (1.74) respectively in the Pre- and Post-PRISMA abstracts, with statistically significant difference (mean difference = 1.38; 95% CI: 0.70, 2.05). Reporting of the exact P-value (B = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.99) was a significant predictor of higher reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of SR abstracts published in leading general dental journals improved after the release of PRISMA-A guidelines, but is still suboptimal. Relevant stakeholders need to work together to enhance the reporting quality of SR abstracts in dentistry.

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in the field of dentofacial trauma: Reporting quality and spin

BACKGROUND/AIM

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide a summary of the entire trial report. Their transparent, detailed, and accurate reporting is essential for clinical decision-making and evidence-based dental practice. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality and prevalence of spin in abstracts of RCTs in the field of dentofacial trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed database was searched to identify RCT reports published between 2017 and 2021 in the field of dentofacial trauma. The reporting quality of abstracts was assessed according to the 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist and measured with an overall quality score (OQS, range: 0-16). Linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with reporting quality. Among the included RCTs, parallel-group RCTs with non-significant primary outcomes were selected for spin assessment using predefined spin strategies.

RESULTS

One hundred and twelve eligible abstracts were identified and included. The mean OQS was 4.51 (SD, 1.35; 95% CI, 4.26-4.76). Abstracts with more than 250 words (p = .004) and a structured format (p = .032) had significantly better reporting quality. Of the 30 abstracts that were eligible for spin assessment, spin was identified in 23 (76.7%). Among these, spin was observed in the Conclusions sections of 22 abstracts (73.3%) and the Results sections of 9 abstracts (30.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among RCT abstracts in the field of dentofacial trauma, the reporting quality was sub-optimal and the prevalence of spin was relatively high. Strict adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines is needed to ensure complete and transparent reporting. Relevant stakeholders need to make concerted efforts to avoid spin.

The reporting and methodological quality of split-mouth trials in oral implantology: A methodological study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess the reporting and methodological quality of split-mouth trials (SMTs) in oral implantology published during the past 10 years, and to investigate whether there was any improvement over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed for SMTs in oral implantology published during 2011-20. We used CONSORT 2010, its extension for within-person trial (WPT), and an SMT-specific methodological checklist to assess trial reporting quality (TRQ), WPT-specific reporting quality (WRQ), and SMT-specific methodological quality (SMQ), respectively. Binary scores were given to each item, and total scores of TRQ (range 0-32), WRQ (0-15), and SMQ (0-3) were calculated for each study. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to compare the quality of SMTs published before (2011-17) and after (2018-20) the release of CONSORT for WPT.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine SMTs were included. The mean TRQ, WRQ, and SMQ were 16.4, 6.7, and 1.3, respectively. Less than one-third (n = 25, 31.6%) reported the rationale for using split-mouth designs. Only 4 (5.1%) trials adequately conducted sample size calculation, and 40 (50.6%) used appropriate statistical methods that considered dependency and clustering of data. In multivariable analyses, compared with 2011-17, studies published in 2018-20 had significantly higher TRQ (p = .044), while WRQ and SMQ did not show improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting and methodological quality of SMTs in oral implantology need to be improved. Joint efforts are needed to improve the reporting and methodology of SMTs in this field.

Reporting quality for abstracts of randomised trials on child and adolescent depression prevention: a meta-epidemiological study on adherence to CONSORT for abstracts

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts in reports of randomised trials on child and adolescent depression prevention. Secondary objective was to examine factors associated with overall reporting quality.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and CENTRAL.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Trials were eligible if the sample consisted of children and adolescents under 18 years with or without an increased risk for depression or subthreshold depression. We included reports published from 1 January 2003 to 8 August 2020 on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster randomised trials (CRTs) assessing universal, selective and indicated interventions aiming to prevent the onset of depression or reducing depressive symptoms.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

As the primary outcome measure, we assessed for each trial abstract whether information recommended by CONSORT was adequately reported, inadequately reported or not reported. Moreover, we calculated a summative score of overall reporting quality and analysed associations with trial and journal characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 169 eligible studies, 103 (61%) RCTs and 66 (39%) CRTs. Adequate reporting varied considerably across CONSORT items: while 9 out of 10 abstracts adequately reported the study objective, no abstract adequately provided information on blinding. Important adverse events or side effects were only adequately reported in one out of 169 abstracts. Summative scores for the abstracts' overall reporting quality ranged from 17% to 83%, with a median of 40%. Scores were associated with the number of authors, abstract word count, journal impact factor, year of publication and abstract structure.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting quality for abstracts of trials on child and adolescent depression prevention is suboptimal. To help health professionals make informed judgements, efforts for improving adherence to reporting guidelines for abstracts are needed.

Spin in the Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials in Operative Dentistry: A Cross-sectional Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the presence and characteristics of spin in recently published RCT abstracts in operative dentistry and to investigate potential factors associated with the presence of spin.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The PubMed database was searched to identify parallel-group RCTs published between 2015 and 2019 in the field of operative dentistry, which compared two or more groups and had nonsignificant results for the primary outcome. Two authors evaluated independently the presence and characteristics of spin among these abstracts. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with the presence of spin in the Results and the Conclusions sections, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 77 RCT abstracts were included, among which 58 (75.3%) showed at least one type of spin. Spin was identified in the Results and Conclusions sections of 32 (41.6%) and 45 (58.4%) abstracts, respectively. 19 RCTs (24.7%) presented spin in both the Results and the Conclusions section of abstracts. The presence of spin in the Results section of abstracts was significantly associated with source of funding (OR=8.10; p=0.025) and number of treatment arms was associated with the presence of spin in the Conclusions section of abstracts (OR=5.66; p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

The occurrence rate of spin in the sample of operative dentistry RCTs abstracts is high.

Evaluation of reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials regarding patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement for abstracts

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts regarding patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to analyze the factors influencing the quality.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs on patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT statement for abstracts was used to evaluate the reporting quality of RCT abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 53 RCT abstracts were included. The CONSORT statement for abstracts showed that the average reporting rate of all items was 50.2%. The items with a lower reporting quality were mainly the trial design and the details of randomization and blinding (<10%). The mean overall adherence score across all studies was 8.68 ± 2.69 (range 4-13.5). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that the higher reporting scores were associated with higher journal impact factor (P < 0.01), international collaboration (P = 0.04), and structured abstract format (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Although many RCTs on patients with COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall quality of reporting in the included RCT abstracts was suboptimal, thus diminishing their potential usefulness, and this may mislead clinical decision-making. In order to improve the reporting quality, it is necessary to promote and actively apply the CONSORT statement for abstracts.

Are orthodontic randomised controlled trials justified with a citation of an appropriate systematic review?

Background

A systematic review of the evidence should be undertaken to support the justification for undertaking a clinical trial. The aim of this study was to examine whether reports of orthodontic Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) cite prior systematic reviews (SR) to explain the rationale or justification of the trial. Study characteristics that predicated the citation of SR in the RCT report were also explored.

Material and methods

Orthodontic RCTs published between 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2020 in seven orthodontic journals were identified. All titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors. Descriptive statistics and associations were assessed for the study characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify predicators of SR inclusion in the trial report.

Results

301 RCTs fulfilling the eligibility criteria were assessed. 220 SRs were available of which 74.5% (N = 164) were cited, and 24.5% (N = 56) were not included but were available in the literature within 12 months of trial commencement. When a SR was not included in the introduction or no SR was available within 12 months of trial commencement, interventional studies were commonly cited. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the possibility of inclusion of a SR in the introduction (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.18–0.71; p = 0.003).

Conclusions

A quarter of orthodontic RCTs (24.5%) included in this study did not cite a SR in the introduction section to justify the rationale of the trial when a relevant SR was available. To reduce research waste and optimal usage of resources, researchers should identify or conduct a systematic review of the evidence to support the rationale and justification of the trial.

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

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of scientific articles should be accurate and detailed in summarizing the information in the full-text because they are 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 the 17th of January 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, blinding, 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 better abstract reporting.

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. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Do not make clinical decisions based on abstracts of healthcare research: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the reporting quality of healthcare abstracts and inconsistencies between abstracts and full texts.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This systematic review included overviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) that summarized data of healthcare abstracts on reporting of abstracts and consistency of abstracts with the full text. Searches were performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases from 1900 to February 2019. Two authors screened the overviews and extracted the data. All analyses were descriptive and divided into two main groups: abstracts' reporting quality and abstracts' consistency with the full text. Abstracts were considered poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text if more than 5% of abstracts' information was not fully reported or not consistent with the full text.

RESULTS

27 overviews analyzing 5,194 RCTs and 866 SRs were retrieved for reporting quality of abstracts. A total of 22 overviews analyzing 2,025 RCTs and 551 SRs were included for consistency of abstracts with the full text. Abstracts across all healthcare areas presented poor reporting quality and were inconsistent with the full texts, with results and conclusions as the most inconsistent sections.

CONCLUSION

Abstracts of healthcare RCTs and SRs have shown a large room for improvement in reporting quality and consistency with the full text. Authors, journal editors and reviewers need to give the highest priority to this matter.

Citation of prior systematic reviews in reports of randomized controlled trials published in dental speciality journals

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent to which reports of dental Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) cite prior systematic reviews (SR) to explain the rationale or justification of the trial. Study characteristics that predicated the citation of SR in the RCT report were explored.

METHODS

An electronic database search was undertaken to identify dental RCTs published between 1st January 2014 and 31st December 2019. All titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors. Descriptive statistics and associations were calculated for the study characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify predicators of SR inclusion in the trial report.

RESULTS

682 RCTs were analysed. 312 SRs were available of which 62.5 % were cited and 37.5 % were not included but were available in the literature within 12 months of trial commencement. An association between inclusion of SR and trial registration (P = 0.046) was detected. For the inclusion of a SR, authors based in Asia or other had lower odds than those based in Europe (OR: 0.53; 95 % CI:0.34,0.82; p = 0.005). Every unit increase in journal impact factor increased the odds of SR inclusion (OR: 1.23; 95 %: 1.06, 1.43; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

A relatively high proportion of dental RCTs (37.5 %) did not cite a SR in the introduction section to justify the rationale of the trial when a relevant SR was available. Trials conducted by a corresponding author based in Europe and published in journals with an increasing impact factor were also more likely to cite a SR.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Further progress is required to minimise research waste and ensure resources are channelled towards clinically useful trials which have an appropriate rationale and justification.

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

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.

Abstracts of published randomised controlled trials in Endodontics: Reporting quality and spin

AIMS

To assess the reporting quality of recently published randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in Endodontics, to investigate factors associated with reporting quality, and to evaluate the existence and characteristics of spin. Spin refers to reporting strategies that distort study results and misguide readers.

METHODOLOGY

The PubMed database was searched to identify abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics published during 2017 to 2018. Two authors assessed the reporting quality of each included abstract using the original 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist, with the overall quality score (OQS, range: 0 to 16) being the primary outcome measure. For each individual item, a score of '1' was given if it was described adequately, and '0' if the description was inadequate. Linear regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with reporting quality. For the evaluation of spin, two authors selected parallel-group RCTs with a nonsignificant primary outcome from the included abstracts, and evaluated independently the existence and characteristics of spin among these abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 162 abstracts were included for assessment of reporting, for which the mean OQS was 3.97 (SD, 1.30; 95 % CI, 3.77 to 4.17). According to multivariable analysis, origin from Europe (P=0.001) and reporting of the exact P value (P=0.020) were significantly associated with better reporting. Forty abstracts with statistically nonsignificant results for their primary outcome were included for spin evaluation, among which 34 (85.0%) had at least one type of spin. Thirty-two abstracts (94.1%) had spin in their conclusions section, and six abstracts (17.6%) had spin in the results section.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in Endodontics needs to be improved. The occurrence rate of spin in the sample of abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics was high. Relevant stakeholders are recommended to be familiar with the CONSORT for Abstracts guideline and develop active strategies to ensure its implementation.

Reporting quality and spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials of periodontal therapy and cardiovascular disease outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Poor reporting in randomized clinical trial (RCT) abstracts reduces quality and misinforms readers. Spin, a biased presentation of findings, could frequently mislead clinicians to accept a clinical intervention despite non-significant primary outcome. Therefore, good reporting practices and absence of spin enhances research quality. We aim to assess the reporting quality and spin in abstracts of RCTs evaluating the effect of periodontal therapy on cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and 17 trial registration platforms were searched. Cohort, non-randomized, non-English studies, and pediatric studies were excluded. RCT abstracts were reviewed by 2 authors using the CONSORT for abstracts and spin checklists for data extraction. Cohen's Kappa statistic was used to assess inter-rater agreement. Data on the selected RCT publication metrics were collected. Descriptive analysis was performed with non-parametric methods. Correlation analysis between quality, spin and bibliometric parameters was conducted.

RESULTS

24 RCTs were selected for CONSORT analysis and 14 fulfilled the criteria for spin analysis. Several important RCT elements per CONSORT were neglected in the abstract including description of the study population (100%), explicitly stated primary outcome (87%), methods of randomization and blinding (100%), trial registration (87%). No RCT examined true outcomes (CVD events). A significant fraction of the abstracts appeared with at least one form of spin in the results and conclusions (86%) and claimed some treatment benefit in spite of non-significant primary outcome (64%). High-quality reporting had a significant positive correlation with reporting of trial registration (p = 0.04) and funding (p = 0.009). Spinning showed marginal negative correlation with reporting quality (p = 0.059).

CONCLUSION

Poor adherence to the CONSORT guidelines and high levels of data spin were found in abstracts of RCTs exploring the effects of periodontal therapy on CVD outcomes. Our findings indicate that journal editors and reviewers should consider strict adherence to proper reporting guidelines to improve reporting quality and reduce waste.

Biomedical conferences’ author instructions rarely mention guidelines for reporting abstracts of trials and systematic reviews

Aim: To analyze whether instructions for authors of biomedical conference abstracts mention guidelines for writing randomized controlled trial and systematic review abstracts and to evaluate reasons for their absence from instructions. Materials & methods: We analyzed instructions for authors of biomedical conferences advertized in 2019 and assessed whether they mentioned Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. We surveyed contact persons from abstract/publication committees of selected conferences to analyze why relevant guidelines were missing. Results: Instructions for abstracts were available for 819 conferences. Only two (0.2%) had reporting instructions for randomized controlled trial/systematic review authors. Almost half of the contacted conference organizers whose response we received were not aware of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. Conclusion: Conference organizers do not require and are not familiar enough with reporting guidelines.

Randomized Clinical Trials in Pediatric Dentistry: Application of Evidence-Based Dentistry through the CONSORT Statement

In order to include appropriate informed decisions on dental therapeutic or preventive procedures in children, Pediatric Dentists should apply the fundamentals of "Evidence-Based Dentistry" (EBD). This oral health approach assists clinicians in understanding and applying the most relevant research published on evidence in the clinical setting when treating their patients. One of the crucial steps of EBD is to critically appraise and use the primary articles about therapy or prevention, namely, Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT), the study design that best addresses the questions related with these clinical areas. The aim of the present paper was to provide the basic concepts and an example of how to critically read and understand articles on RCT studies in Pediatric Dentistry employing the CONSORT statement, a process that involves assessing the reliability of results, risk of bias (internal validity), and applicability of reported clinical findings (external validity).

Conference abstracts describing systematic reviews on pain were selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to determine the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts presented at World Congresses on Pain (WCPs) and to quantify agreement in results presented in those abstracts with their corresponding full-length publications.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We screened abstracts of five WCPs held from 2008 to 2016 to find abstracts describing SRs. Two authors searched for corresponding full publications using PubMed and Google Scholar in April 2018. Methods and outcomes extracted from abstracts were compared with their corresponding full publications. The reporting quality of abstracts was evaluated against the PRISMA for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 143 conference abstracts describing SRs. Of these, 90 (63%) were published as full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals by April 2018, with a median time from conference presentation to publication of 5 months (interquartile range: -0.25 to 14 months). Among 79 abstract-publication pairs evaluable for discordance, there was some form of discordance in 40% of pairs. Qualitative discordance (different direction of the effect) was found in 13 analyzed pairs (16%). The median adherence by abstracts to each PRISMA-A checklist item was 33% (interquartile range: 29% to 42%).

CONCLUSION

Conference abstracts of pain SRs are selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported.

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

OBJECTIVES

To 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.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, research on research study.

METHODS

A 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 MEASURES

The 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).

RESULTS

A 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, conclusions and funding) were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75%). None of the abstracts adequately reported authors, randomisation or outcome 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.

CONCLUSIONS

The 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.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in the seven highest-ranking anesthesiology journals

Background

The aim of this study was to assess adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) in the highest-impact anesthesiology journals.

Methods

This was a descriptive, cross-sectional, methodological study. We analyzed whether abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the highest-impact anesthesiology journals between 2014 and 2016 adhered with CONSORT-A. RCT abstracts published in the seven first-quartile journals in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) category Anesthesiology were analyzed. The primary outcome was adherence to the 17-item CONSORT-A checklist. Secondary outcomes were adherence to individual checklist items and adherence with the checklist across the individual journals.

Results

Search results yielded 688 records, of which 622 abstracts were analyzed. Analysis of the total score of the CONSORT-A checklist indicated a per-article median of 41% (interquartile range 35–53%). The European Journal of Anesthesiology had the highest overall adherence rate (53%), whereas Anaesthesia had the lowest (32%). The lowest adherence was observed for the following items: Trial design (18%), Contact of the authors as an e-mail address of the corresponding author (16%), Recruitment status (9%), Number of participants analyzed (8%), Randomization (3%), and Funding (0.2%).

Conclusions

RCT abstracts published in top anesthesiology journals are poorly reported, providing insufficient information to readers. Interventions are needed to increase adherence to relevant reporting checklists for writing RCT abstracts.

Reporting quality of trial abstracts-improved yet suboptimal: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature to determine if the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) abstract guideline in 2008 was followed by change in reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS

Evaluations were included if they compared reporting quality of RCT abstracts before and after the publication of CONSORT-abstract guideline. The literature search was performed (January 2008 to April 2017) in Medline (Ovid), EMbase, CINAHL plus and Cochrane methodologies register. We assessed study validity with a special validity tool, adapted from a previous Cochrane review.

RESULTS

Initial search identified 4142 articles, of which total 10 evaluations including 5184 abstracts were included. Total 22 outcomes related to individual items of CONSORT-abstract guideline were assessed, and 14 showed significant effect sizes favoring CONSORT-abstract guideline. Despite significant effect size, the overall post-CONSORT reporting (PCR) was suboptimal for ten items: title (RR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.59, PCR = 53.4%), participants (RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.26, PCR = 24.5%), primary outcome (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.23, PCR = 65%), blinding (RR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.76, PCR = 13.9%), trial status (RR = 1.81, 95% 1.39 to 2.35, PCR = 10.6%), numbers analyzed (RR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.98, PCR = 26.5%), outcome (RR = 1.40, 95% 1.05 to 1.86, PCR = 21.9%), effect size and precision (RR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.19, PCR = 58.9%), harms (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.48, PCR = 41.8%), trial registration (RR = 2.02, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.50, PCR = 33.8%). Three items with favorable effect size in addition had wide CIs: randomization (RR = -4.28, 95% CI 1.56 to 11.75, PCR = -3.3%), allocation concealment (RR = -19.89, 95% CI 1.54 to 256.69, PCR = -5.7%), and funding (RR = -22.61, 95% CI 8.13 to 62.67, PCR = -11.32%).

CONCLUSION

The change in reporting quality of RCT abstracts is far from satisfactory, as evidenced by suboptimal post-CONSORT rates and wide CIs of effect sizes for majority of improved items. Mere publication of CONSORT-abstract guideline, without strict endorsement has failed to translate into good quality abstracts.

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

BACKGROUND

The 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).

METHODS

A 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).

RESULTS

88% (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).

CONCLUSIONS

For 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.

Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals

The objectives of this study were 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use reporting guidelines (RGs); 2) to identify factors related to RG endorsement; and 3) to assess the knowledge, opinions, and future plans of dental journal editors in chief (EICs) on RGs. A total of 109 peer-reviewed and original research-oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2015 were included. The "instructions to authors" and "instructions to reviewers" of these journals were identified and retrieved from journals' official websites. Any mention of RGs or other related policies were sought and extracted. In addition, an anonymous survey of the EICs of the included journals was conducted with a validated questionnaire. All 109 journals provided "instructions to authors," among which 55 (50.5%) mentioned RGs. Only the CONSORT (45.0%), PRISMA (13.8%), and STROBE (12.8%) guidelines were mentioned by >10% of the included journals. Statistical analyses suggest that RGs were more frequently mentioned by SCIE-indexed journals (P < 0.001), higher-impact journals (P = 0.002), and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations (P < 0.001). "Instructions to reviewers" were available online for only 9 journals (8.3%), 3 of which mentioned RGs. For the EIC survey, the response rate was 32.1% (35 of 109). Twenty-six editors (74.3%) stated that they knew what RGs were before receiving our questionnaire. Twenty-four editors (68.6%) believed that RGs should be adopted by all refereed dental journals where appropriate. RGs are important tools for enhancing research reporting and reducing avoidable research waste, but currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals. Joint efforts by all stakeholders to further promote RG usage in dentistry are needed.

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

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.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses, investigate any improvement after the release of CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) for Abstracts guidelines, and identify factors associated with reporting quality.

METHODS

Abstract books of the 2003-07 (Pre-CONSORT period) and 2010-14 (Post-CONSORT period) EOS congresses were obtained from the official website of European Journal of Orthodontics. A hand-search was conducted to identify RCTs. Reporting quality was assessed and scored using the original 17-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Risk ratio and the t-test were used to compare the adequate reporting rate of each item and the overall quality in two periods, respectively. Univariate and multivariate regressions were used to identify predictors of reporting quality.

RESULTS

A total of 138 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean overall CONSORT score was 4.10 (SD: 1.32) and 4.48 (1.31) in the Pre- and Post-CONSORT samples, respectively [P = 0.099; mean difference, -0.39 (95% CI: -0.84, 0.07)]. Only three CONSORT items ('objective', 'interventions', and 'conclusions') were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75 per cent). No abstract provided information regarding the corresponding author, trial registration, and source of funding. Less than 1.5 per cent of the included abstracts sufficiently reported 'randomization', 'recruitment', and 'outcome in the results section'. In the multivariate analysis, greater word count (P = 0.036) and provision of the exact P value (P = 0.006) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.

LIMITATIONS

Our final regression model can explain only about 8 per cent of the variance of reporting quality. Other predictors not included in this study may be investigated in analogous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at EOS congresses was suboptimal. Joint efforts by authors and conference committees to improve reporting are needed.