Reporting quality for abstracts of randomized controlled trials in cancer nursing research

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.

Evaluation of Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Abstracts for Pediatric Strabismus Therapies

PURPOSE

This study investigates the quality of systematic review abstracts through evaluation of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) abstract guideline adherence, Assessment for Multiple Systematic Reviews Tool (AMSTAR) quality rating, spin, abstract word count, and abstract structure.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the CEV@US database for articles related to pediatric strabismus. Inclusion criteria regarding pediatric strabismus studies were required to be in English, systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, and patients less than eighteen years of age. From the search records, two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts to locate eligible reviews and extract study characteristics using AMSTAR-2 and pilot-tested Google forms.

RESULTS

Searches retrieved 545 studies, of which 14 were eligible for data extraction. We found one form of spin in 1 abstract (of 14, 7.14%) of our included studies. 11/13 (84.62%) of studies failed to mention risk of bias assessment. There was no significant association between abstract characteristics and quality of the study. We found a significant correlation between AMSTAR-2 rating and PRISMA completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, a positive finding was that no spin was found within the abstracts of articles for pediatric strabismus therapies. PRISMA-A adherence was strongly associated with higher quality studies and should be considered for all systematic reviews in ophthalmology. Clinical research of pediatric strabismus is significantly limited in the number of studies present, as evidenced by our data. To improve the quality of abstract reporting, efforts from authors and journals are needed.

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.

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.

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.

Abstracts for reports of randomised trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting quality of abstracts for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the use of spin strategies and the level of spin for RCTs with statistically non-significant primary outcomes, and to explore potential predictors for reporting quality and the severity of spin.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed was searched to find RCTs that tested interventions for COVID-19, and the reporting quality and spin in the abstracts were assessed. Linear regression analyses were used to identify potential predictors.

RESULTS

Forty RCT abstracts were included in our assessment of reporting quality, and a higher word count in the abstract was significantly correlated with higher reporting scores (95% CI 0.044 to 0.658, P=0.026). Multiple spin strategies were identified. Our multivariate analyses showed that geographical origin was associated with severity of spin, with research from non-Asian regions containing fewer spin strategies (95% CI -0.760 to -0.099, P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs of interventions for COVID-19 is far from satisfactory. A relatively high proportion of the abstracts contained spin, and the findings reported in the results and conclusion sections of these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.

Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information and are inconsistent with the full text: An overview study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regards to completeness of reporting, spin (i.e., interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in data with the full text.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese.

DATA EXTRACTION

Completeness of reporting was assessed using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a SPIN-checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text were assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (Kappa statistics). Methodological quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The mean number of fully reported items for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1 (SD 2.4) out of 15 points and the mean number of items with spin was 4.9 (SD 2.6) out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=0.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean Kappa 0.20 SD 0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the SPIN-checklist (mean Kappa 0.47 SD 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The abstracts were incomplete, with spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies.

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.

The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature

Background

The stepped wedge trial (SWT) design is a type of the randomized clinical trial (RCT) design in which clusters or individuals are randomly and sequentially crossed over from control to intervention over a number of time periods. Trials using SWT design have become increasingly popular in medical, behavioral and social sciences research. Therefore, complete and transparent reporting of these studies is crucial. In particular, the quality of the abstracts of their reports is important because these may be the only accessible sources for their results.

Objective

The aims of this survey were to evaluate the reporting quality of SWT abstracts and to identify factors contributing to better reporting quality.

Methods

We performed literature searches to identify relevant articles in English published from November 1987 to October 2016 in the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. At least two reviewers examined the quality of abstract reporting using the 17-item CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) Extension for Abstracts tool. Poisson regression models for incidence rate ratio (IRR) were used to identify factors associated with reporting quality (e.g., CONSORT endorsement, the number of authors, abstract format).

Results

A total of 92 eligible articles were identified. Only 6 from the 17 items were reported in more than 80% of the articles (e.g., the statement of conclusions, contact details for the corresponding author). In the multivariable analysis, the year of publication since 2008 (IRR: 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.33), journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement (IRR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.31), and multiple authorship (IRR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.27) were significantly associated with better reporting quality.

Conclusion

The quality of reporting of SWT abstracts was suboptimal, although there have been some significant improvements since 2008. Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by journals is an essential element of improvement strategies. Also, multiple authorship is significantly associated with better quality of abstract reporting.

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

BACKGROUND

The authors conducted a study to assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in leading general dental journals, investigate any improvement after the release of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts guidelines, and identify factors associated with better reporting quality.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed for RCTs published in 10 leading general dental journals during the periods from 2005 to 2007 (pre-CONSORT period) and 2010 to 2012 (post-CONSORT period). The authors evaluated and scored the reporting quality of included abstracts by using the original 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The authors used risk ratios and the t test to compare the adequate reporting rate of each item and the overall quality in the 2 periods. The authors used univariate and multivariate regressions to identify predictors of better reporting quality.

RESULTS

The authors included and evaluated 276 RCT abstracts. Investigators reported significantly more checklist items during the post-CONSORT period (mean [standard deviation {SD}], 4.53 [1.69]) than during the pre-CONSORT period (mean [SD], 3.87 [1.10]; mean difference, -0.66 [95% confidence interval, -0.99 to -0.33]; P < .001). Investigators reported 3 items-interventions, objective, and conclusions-adequately in most of the abstracts (> 80%). In contrast, the authors saw sufficient reporting of randomization, recruitment, outcome in the results section, and funding in none of the pre-CONSORT abstracts and less than 2% of the post-CONSORT abstracts. On the basis of the multivariate analysis, a higher impact factor (P < .001) and a publication date in the post-CONSORT period (P = .003) were associated significantly with higher reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts from leading general dental journals has improved significantly, but there is still room for improvement.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Joint efforts by authors, reviewers, journal editors, and other stakeholders to improve the reporting of dental RCT abstracts 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.

An interrupted time series analysis showed suboptimal improvement in reporting quality of trial abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare the immediate and long-term change in reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in Pediatrics, The Journal of Pediatrics, and JAMA Pediatrics before and after the publication of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT)-abstract statement.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS

Study had "Interrupted time-series" design. Eligible RCT abstracts were retrieved by PubMed search in two study periods from January 2003 to December 2007 (pre-CONSORT) and January 2010 to December 2014 (post-CONSORT). These abstracts were matched with the CONSORT checklist for abstracts. The primary outcome measure was CONSORT-abstract score defined as number of CONSORT items correctly reported divided by 18 and expressed as percentage. The mean percentage scores were used to compare reporting quality between pre- and post-CONSORT using segmented linear regression.

RESULTS

A total of 424 RCT abstracts in pre-CONSORT and 467 in post-CONSORT were analyzed. A significant change in slope of regression line between two time periods (0.151 [confidence interval CI, 0.004-0.298], P = 0.044) was observed. Intercepts did not show a significant difference (-2.39 [CI, 4.93-0.157], P = 0.065).

CONCLUSION

The overall reporting quality of RCT abstracts in the high-impact pediatrics journals was suboptimal (<50%); however, it improved when assessed over a 5-year period, implying slow but gradual adoption of guideline.

Reporting quality of abstracts in phase III clinical trials of systemic therapy in metastatic solid malignancies

Background

Manuscript abstracts represent a critical source of information for oncology practitioners. Practitioners may utilize the information contained in abstracts as a basis for treatment decisions particularly when full-text articles are not accessible. In 2007, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension statement for abstracts provided a minimum list of elements that should be included in abstracts. In this study we evaluate the degree of adherence to these recommendations and accessibility of full text publications in oncology publications.

Methods

A systematic review of abstracts of randomized, controlled, phase III trials in metastatic solid malignancies published between January 2009 and December 2011 in PubMed, Medline, and Embase was completed. Abstracts were assigned a completeness score of 0–18 based on the number of CONSORT-recommended elements. Accessibility through open access was recorded.

Results

174 abstracts with data for 95,956 patients were reviewed. The median completeness score was 9 (range, 3–17). Open access to full text articles was available for 80 % of abstracts. The remaining 20 % (35 out of 174) had a median cost of 38 USD (range: $22–49.95). The least frequently reported elements were: trial design description (20 %), participant allocation method (13 %), blinding (24 %), trial enrollment status (22 %), registration and name of trial (26 %) and funding source (18 %). The most frequently reported elements were eligibility criteria (98 %), study interventions (100 %), and primary endpoint (87 %).

Conclusion

There is poor adherence to the CONSORT recommendations for abstract reporting in publications of randomized cancer clinical trials which could negatively impact clinical decision-making. Full-text articles are frequently available through open access.