Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials assessing interventional radiology for liver disease

PURPOSE

To assess the completeness of reporting in abstracts of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing interventional radiology (IR) for liver disease; to assess whether publication of the 2017 CONSORT update for nonpharmacological treatments (NPT) resulted in changes in abstract reporting; and to identify factors associated with better reporting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify RCTs of IR for liver disease (January 2015-September 2020). Two reviewers assessed the completeness of abstract reporting according to the CONSORT-NPT-2017-update. The primary outcome was the mean number of CONSORT items completely reported among 10 items reported in <50% of the abstracts published in 2015. A time series analysis assessed the evolution trend over time. A multivariate regression model was used to identify factors associated with better reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 107 abstracts of RCTs published in 61 journals were included. Overall, 74% (45/61) of journals endorsed the main CONSORT guidelines, of which 60% (27/45) had a policy to implement them. The mean number of primary outcome items completely reported increased by 0.19 over the study period. The publication of the CONSORT-NPT update did not lead to an increase in the trend of items reported (increase of 0.04 items/month before vs. 0.02 after, P=0.41). Factors associated with more complete reporting were impact factor (OR=1.13; 95%CI:1.07-1.18) and endorsement of CONSORT with an implementation policy (OR=8.29; 95%CI:2.04-33.65).

CONCLUSION

Completeness of reporting is incomplete in abstracts of trials of IR liver disease and did not improve after publication of the CONSORT-NPT-2017 update with abstract guidance.

Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist

Objective

We appraised the reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) published in one urology journal and explored associations between abstract characteristics and completeness of reporting.

Methods

The Arab Journal of Urology (AJU) was searched for SR/MAs published between January 2011 and 31 May 2022. SR/MAs with structured abstract and quantitative synthesis were eligible. Two reviewers simultaneously together selected the SR/MAs by title, screened the abstracts, and included those based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data of a range of characteristics were extracted from each SR/MAs into a spreadsheet. To gauge completeness of reporting, the PRISMA-Abstract checklist (12 items) was used to appraise the extent to which abstracts adhered to the checklist. For each abstract, we computed item, section, and overall adherence. Chi-square and t-tests compared the adherence scores. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified the abstract characteristics associated with overall adherence.

Results

In total, 66 SR/MAs published during the examined period; 62 were included. Partial reporting was not uncommon. In terms of adherence to the 12 PRISMA-A items were: two items exhibited 100% adherence (title, objectives); five items had 80% to <100% adherence (interpretation, included studies, synthesis of results, eligibility criteria, and information sources); two items displayed 40% to <80% adherence (description of the effect, strengths/limitations of evidence); and three items had adherence that fell between 0% and 1.6% (risk of bias, funding/conflict of interest, registration). Multivariable regression revealed two independent predictors of overall adherence: single-country authorship (i.e. no collaboration) was associated with higher overall adherence (P = 0.046); and abstracts from South America were associated with lower overall adherence (P = 0.04).

Conclusion

This study is the first to appraise abstracts of SR/MAs in urology. For high-quality abstracts, improvements are needed in the quality of reporting. Adoption/better adherence to PRISMA-A checklist by editors/authors could improve the reporting quality and completeness of SR/MAs abstracts.

Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals

BACKGROUND

In the busy world of cardiovascular medicine, abstracts may be the only part of a publication that clinicians read. Therefore, it is critical for abstracts to accurately reflect article content. The extended CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement for Abstracts was developed to ensure high abstract quality. However, it is unknown how often adherence to CONSORT guidelines occurs among cardiovascular journals.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials published in 3 major cardiovascular journals ( Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and European Heart Journal) from 2011 to 2017. Post hoc, interim, and cost-effective analyses of randomized controlled trials were excluded. Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified data collection form and a third investigator adjudicated the data. The primary outcome was frequency of subcategory adherence to CONSORT guidelines. A total of 478 abstracts were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the abstracts (53%; 255/478; 95% CI, 49%-57%) identified the article as randomized in the title. All abstracts detailed the interventions for both study groups (100%) and 81% (95% CI, 78%-85%) reported trial registration. Methodological quality reporting was relatively low: 9% (45/478; 95% CI, 6%-12%) described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection, 43% (204/478; 95% CI, 39%-47%) reported details of blinding, and <1% (4/478; 95% CI, 0%-2%) reported allocation concealment. Approximately 60% (301/478; 95% CI, 59%-67%) of the included abstracts provided primary outcome results while 55% (262/478; 95% CI, 51%-60%) reported harms or adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high prevalence of nonadherence to CONSORT guidelines among leading cardiovascular journals. Efforts by editors, authors, and reviewers should be made to increase adherence and promote transparent and unbiased presentation of study results.

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.

Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study

Background

Open access (OA) journals are becoming a publication standard for health research, but it is not clear how they differ from traditional subscription journals in the quality of research reporting. We assessed the completeness of results reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in these journals.

Methods

We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Checklist for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) to assess the completeness of reporting in abstracts of parallel-design RCTs published in subscription journals (n = 149; New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Lancet) and OA journals (n = 119; BioMedCentral series, PLoS journals) in 2016 and 2017.

Results

Abstracts in subscription journals completely reported 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77–81%) of 16 CONSORT-A items, compared with 65% (95% CI, 63–67%) of these items in abstracts from OA journals (P < 0.001, chi-square test). The median number of completely reported CONSORT-A items was 13 (95% CI, 12–13) in subscription journal articles and 11 (95% CI, 10–11) in OA journal articles. Subscription journal articles had significantly more complete reporting than OA journal articles for nine CONSORT-A items and did not differ in reporting for items trial design, outcome, randomization, blinding (masking), recruitment, and conclusions. OA journals were better than subscription journals in reporting randomized study design in the title.

Conclusion

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in subscription medical journals have greater completeness of reporting than abstracts published in OA journals. OA journals should take appropriate measures to ensure that published articles contain adequate detail to facilitate understanding and quality appraisal of research reports about RCTs.

Reporting Quality of Journal Abstracts for Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials Before and After the Implementation of the CONSORT Extension for Abstracts

BACKGROUND

Adequate reporting is crucial in full-text publications but even more so in abstracts because they are the most frequently read part of a publication. In 2008, an extension for abstracts of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-A) statement was published, defining which items should be reported in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, we compared the adherence of RCT abstracts to CONSORT-A before and after the publication of CONSORT-A.

METHODS

RCTs published in the five surgical journals with the highest impact factor were identified through PubMed for 2005-2007 and 2014-2016. Adherence to 15 CONSORT-A items and two additional items for abstracts of non-pharmacological trials was assessed in duplicate. We compared the overall adherence to CONSORT-A between the two time periods using an unpaired t test and explored adherence to specific items.

RESULTS

A total of 192 and 164 surgical RCT abstracts were assessed (2005-2007 and 2014-2016, respectively). In the pre-CONSORT-A phase, the mean score of adequately reported items was 6.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.90-6.38) and 8.11 in the post-CONSORT-A phase (95% CI 7.83-8.39; mean difference 1.97, 95% CI 1.60-2.34; p < 0.0001). The comparison of individual items indicated a significant improvement in 9 of the 15 items. The three least reported items in the post-CONSORT-A phase were randomization (2.4%), blinding (13.4%), and funding (0.0%). Specific items for non-pharmacological trials were rarely reported (approximately 10%).

CONCLUSION

The reporting in abstracts of surgical RCTs has improved after the implementation of CONSORT-A. More importantly, there is still ample room for improvement.

Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions

Evidence from a well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) is generally considered to be the gold standard that can inform clinical practice and guide decision-making. However, several deficiencies in the reporting of RCTs have frequently been identified, including incomplete, selective, and biased or inconsistent reporting. Such suboptimal reporting may lead to irreproducible results, substantial waste of resources, impaired study validity, erosion of public trust in science, and a high risk of research misconduct. In this article, we present an overview of the reporting of RCTs in the biomedical literature with a focus on the three most common reporting problems: (i) lack of adherence to reporting guidelines, (ii) inconsistencies between trial protocols or registrations and full reports, and (iii) inconsistencies between abstracts and their corresponding full reports. Unsatisfactory levels of adherence to guidelines and frequent inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports, and between abstracts and full reports, were consistently found in various biomedical research fields. A variety of factors were found to be associated with these reporting challenges. Improved reporting can build public trust and credibility of science, save resources, and enhance the ethical integrity of research. Therefore, joint efforts from the various sectors of the biomedical community (researchers, journal editors and reviewers, educators, healthcare providers, and other research consumers) are needed to reduce and reverse the current suboptimal state of RCT reporting in the literature.

A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research

BACKGROUND

Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.

Do Cochrane summaries help student midwives understand the findings of Cochrane systematic reviews: the BRIEF randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Abstracts and plain language summaries (PLS) are often the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact between readers and systematic reviews. It is important to identify how these summaries are used and to know the impact of different elements, including the authors' conclusions. The trial aims to assess whether (a) the abstract or the PLS of a Cochrane Review is a better aid for midwifery students in assessing the evidence, (b) inclusion of authors' conclusions helps them and (c) there is an interaction between the type of summary and the presence or absence of the conclusions.

METHODS

Eight hundred thirteen midwifery students from nine universities in the UK and Ireland were recruited to this 2 × 2 factorial trial (abstract versus PLS, conclusions versus no conclusions). They were randomly allocated to one of four groups and asked to recall knowledge after reading one of four summary formats of two Cochrane Reviews, one with clear findings and one with uncertain findings. The primary outcome was the proportion of students who identified the appropriate statement to describe the main findings of the two reviews as assessed by an expert panel.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in correct response between the abstract and PLS groups in the clear finding example (abstract, 59.6 %; PLS, 64.2 %; risk difference 4.6 %; CI -0.2 to 11.3) or the uncertain finding example (42.7 %, 39.3 %, -3.4 %, -10.1 to 3.4). There was no significant difference between the conclusion and no conclusion groups in the example with clear findings (conclusions, 63.3 %; no conclusions, 60.5 %; 2.8 %; -3.9 to 9.5), but there was a significant difference in the example with uncertain findings (44.7 %; 37.3 %; 7.3 %; 0.6 to 14.1, p = 0.03). PLS without conclusions in the uncertain finding review had the lowest proportion of correct responses (32.5 %). Prior knowledge and belief predicted student response to the clear finding review, while years of midwifery education predicted response to the uncertain finding review.

CONCLUSIONS

Abstracts with and without conclusions generated similar student responses. PLS with conclusions gave similar results to abstracts with and without conclusions. Removing the conclusions from a PLS with uncertain findings led to more problems with interpretation.

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.

Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review reports that queried abstract authors about reasons for not subsequently publishing abstract results as full-length articles.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, and study bibliographies for empirical studies in which investigators examined subsequent full publication of results presented at a biomedical conference and reasons for nonpublication.

RESULTS

The mean full publication rate was 55.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 54.8%, 56.9%] for 24 of 27 eligible reports providing this information and 73.0% (95% CI: 71.2%, 74.7%) for seven reports of abstracts describing clinical trials. Twenty-four studies itemized 1,831 reasons for nonpublication, and six itemized 428 reasons considered the most important reason. "Lack of time" was the most frequently reported reason [weighted average = 30.2% (95% CI: 27.9%, 32.4%)] and the most important reason [weighted average = 38.4% (95% CI: 33.7%, 43.2%)]. Other commonly stated reasons were "lack of time and/or resources," "publication not an aim," "low priority," "incomplete study," and "trouble with co-authors."

CONCLUSIONS

Across medical specialties, the main reasons for not subsequently publishing an abstract in full lie with factors related to the abstract author rather than with journals.

Developing evidence-based dentistry skills: how to interpret randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews

Decision-making based on reliable evidence is more likely to lead to effective and efficient treatments. Evidence-based dentistry was developed, similarly to evidence-based medicine, to help clinicians apply current and valid research findings into their own clinical practice. Interpreting and appraising the literature is fundamental and involves the development of evidence-based dentistry (EBD) skills. Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to be evidence of the highest level in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Furthermore, the assessment of the report of a RCT, as well as a SR, can lead to an estimation of how the study was designed and conducted.

ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study

Background

The inclusion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in conference abstracts in systematic reviews is controversial, partly because study design information and risk of bias is often not fully reported in the abstract. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) requires trial registration of abstracts submitted for their annual conference as of 2007. Our goal was to assess the feasibility of obtaining study design information critical to systematic reviews, but not typically included in conference abstracts, from the trial registration record.

Methods

We reviewed all conference abstracts presented at the ARVO meetings from 2007 through 2009, and identified 496 RCTs; 154 had a single matching registration record in ClinicalTrials.gov. Two individuals independently extracted information from the abstract and the ClinicalTrials.gov record, including study design, sample size, inclusion criteria, masking, interventions, outcomes, funder, and investigator name and contact information. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. We assessed the frequencies of reporting variables appearing in the abstract and the trial register and assessed agreement of information reported in both sources.

Results

We found a substantial amount of study design information in the ClinicalTrials.gov record that was unavailable in the corresponding conference abstract, including eligibility criteria associated with gender (83%; 128/154); masking or blinding of study participants (53%, 82/154), persons administering treatment (30%, 46/154), and persons measuring the outcomes (40%, 61/154)); and number of study centers (58%; 90/154). Only 34% (52/154) of abstracts explicitly described a primary outcome, but a primary outcome was included in the “Primary Outcome” field in the ClinicalTrials.gov record for 82% (126/154) of studies. One or more study interventions were reported in each abstract, but agreed exactly with those reported in ClinicalTrials.gov only slightly more than half the time (88/154, 56%). We found no contact information for study investigators in the abstract, but this information was available in less than one quarter of ClinicalTrial.gov records (17%; 26/154).

Conclusion

RCT design information not reported in conference abstracts is often available in the corresponding ClinicalTrials.gov registration record. Sometimes there is conflicting information reported in the two sources and further contact with the trial investigators may still be required.

PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts

Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.

Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals

BACKGROUND

The extended Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for Abstracts was developed to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on the abstract. To date, few data exist regarding whether it has achieved this goal. We evaluated the extent of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract statement for quality of reports on RCT abstracts by four high-impact general medical journals.

METHODS

A descriptive analysis of published RCT abstracts in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in the year 2010 was conducted by two reviewers, independently extracting data from a MEDLINE/PubMed search.

RESULTS

We identified 271 potential RCT abstracts meeting our inclusion criteria. More than half of the abstracts identified the study as randomized in the title (58.7%; 159/271), reported the specific objective/hypothesis (72.7%; 197/271), described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection (60.9%; 165/271), detailed the interventions for both groups (90.8%; 246/271), and clearly defined the primary outcome (94.8%; 257/271). However, the methodological quality domains were inadequately reported: allocation concealment (11.8%; 32/271) and details of blinding (21.0%; 57/271). Reporting the primary outcome results for each group was done in 84.1% (228/271). Almost all of the abstracts reported trial registration (99.3%; 269/271), whereas reports of funding and of harm or side effects from the interventions were found in only 47.6% (129/271) and 42.8% (116/271) of the abstracts, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings show inconsistencies and non-adherence to the CONSORT for abstract guidelines, especially in the methodological quality domains. Improvements in the quality of RCT reports can be expected by adhering to existing standards and guidelines as expressed by the CONSORT group.

Discordance between conclusions stated in the abstract and conclusions in the article: analysis of published randomized controlled trials of systemic therapy in lung cancer

PURPOSE

Clinicians may read only the abstract of an article to keep abreast of newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, discordances have been noticed in summary conclusions in the abstracts and the main body of some articles. This article evaluated such discordances in detail.

METHODS

RCTs of systemic therapy for lung cancer published between 2004 and 2009 were considered. Conclusions in the body of the articles and those in the abstracts were graded by using a 7-point Likert scale; 1 for strong endorsement of the control arm, 4 for a neutral statement, and 7 for strong endorsement of the experimental arm. Conclusions were classified as discordant if the difference in scores was ≥ 2. χ(2) tests and logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with discordance.

RESULTS

From among 114 eligible RCTs identified (90 for non-small-cell and 24 for small-cell lung cancer), 11 (10%) articles presented discordant conclusions in the abstract and in the body of the articles. Discordance was most common when the experimental arm was strongly supported in the abstract but not in the body of the article (nine of 11; 82%); however, the converse was much less common (two of 11; 18%; P < .001). Intraclass correlations for the two reviewers were ≥ 0.9. The discordances were found to be independent of trial-related factors.

CONCLUSION

Conclusive statements in the abstract can differ from those in the full text. Clinicians should use caution when they consider making changes in their practice on the basis of reading only the abstract of a published RCT.

Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals

BACKGROUND

Clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized trials (RCTs), published in journal articles are important because readers will often base their initial assessment of a trial on such information. However, little is known about the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in medical journals in China.

METHODS

We identified RCTs abstracts from 5 five leading Chinese medical journals published between 1998 and 2007 and indexed in MEDLINE. We assessed the quality of reporting of these abstracts based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) abstract checklist. We also sought to identify whether any differences exist in reporting between the Chinese and English language version of the same abstract.

RESULTS

We identified 332 RCT abstracts eligible for examination. Overall, the abstracts we examined reported 0-8 items as designated in the CONSORT checklist. On average, three items were reported per abstract. Details of the interventions (288/332; 87%), the number of participants randomized (216/332; 65%) and study objectives (109/332; 33%) were the top three items reported. Only two RCT abstracts reported details of trial registration, no abstracts reported the method of allocation concealment and only one mentioned specifically who was blinded. In terms of the proportion of RCT abstracts fulfilling a criterion, the absolute difference (percentage points) between the Chinese and English abstracts was 10% (ranging from 0 to 25%) on average, per item.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in Chinese medical journals needs to be improved. We hope that the introduction and endorsement of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines by journals reporting RCTs will lead to improvements in the quality of reporting.

Quality of reporting of trial abstracts needs to be improved: using the CONSORT for abstracts to assess the four leading Chinese medical journals of traditional Chinese medicine

BACKGROUND

Due to language limitations, the abstract of journal article may be the only way for people of non-Chinese speaking countries to know about trials in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). However, little is known about the reporting quality of these trial abstracts. Our study is to assess the reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in four leading Chinese medical journals of TCM, and to identify any differences in reporting between the Chinese and English version of the same abstract publication.

METHOD

Two reviewers hand-searched the Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, the Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica and the Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion for all abstracts of RCTs published between 2006 and 2007. Two reviewers independently assessed the reporting quality of the Chinese and English version of all eligible abstracts based on a modified version of the CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts (CONSORT for abstracts).

RESULTS

We identified a total of 345 RCTs of TCM with both a Chinese and English abstract. More than half of Chinese abstracts reported details of the trial participants (68%; 234/345), control group intervention (52%; 179/345), the number of participants randomized (73%; 253/345) and benefits when interpreting the trial results (55%; 190/345). Reporting of methodological quality or key features of trial design and trial results were poor; only 2% (7/345) included details of the trial design, 3% (11/345) defined the primary outcome, 5% (17/345) described the methods of random sequence generation, and only 4% (13/345) reported the number of participants analyzed. No abstracts provided details on allocation concealment and trial registration. The percentage agreement in reporting (between the Chinese and English version of the same abstract) ranged from 84% to 100% across individual checklist item.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs published in these four TCM journals needs to be improved. Since none of the four journals adopted CONSORT for Abstracts, we hope that the introduction and adoption of CONSORT for Abstracts by TCM journals will lead to an improvement in reporting quality.

Expanded information retrieval using full-text searching

The value of full text for expanding information retrieval was examined. Two full-text databases were used: Textpresso for neuroscience and ScienceDirect. Queries representing different categories were used to search different text fields (titles, abstracts, full text and, where possible, keywords). Searching the full-text field relative to the commonly used abstracts field increases retrievals by one or more orders of magnitude, depending on the categories selected. For phenomena-type categories (e.g. blood flow, thermodynamic equilibrium, etc.), retrievals are enhanced by about an order of magnitude. For infrastructure-type categories (e.g. equipment types, sponsors, suppliers, databases, etc.), retrievals are enhanced by well over an order of magnitude, and sometimes multiple orders of magnitude. Use of combination terms along with proximity specification capability is a very powerful feature for retrieving relevant records from full-text searching, and can be useful for applications like literature-related discovery.

Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm

BACKGROUND

To describe how frequently harm is reported in the abstract of high impact factor medical journals.

METHODS

DESIGN AND POPULATION

We carried out a blinded structured review of a random sample of 363 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) carried out on human beings, and published in high impact factor medical journals in 2003. Main endpoint: 1) Proportion of articles reporting harm in the abstract; and 2) Proportion of articles that reported harm in the abstract when harm was reported in the main body of the article.

ANALYSIS

Corrected Prevalence Ratio (cPR) and its exact confidence interval were calculated. Non-conditional logistic regression was used.

RESULTS

363 articles and 407 possible comparisons were studied. Overall, harm was reported in 135 abstracts [37.2% (CI95%:32.2 to 42.4)]. Harm was reported in the main text of 243 articles [66.9% (CI95%: 61.8 to 71.8)] and was statistically significant in 54 articles [14.9% (CI95%: 11.4 to 19.0)]. Among the 243 articles that mentioned harm in the text, 130 articles [53.5% (CI95% 47.0 to 59.9)] reported harm in the abstract; a figure that rose to 75.9% (CI95%: 62.4 to 86.5) when the harm reported in the text was statistically significant. Harm in the abstract was more likely to be reported when statistically significant harm was reported in the main body of the article [cPR = 1.70 (CI95% 1.47 to 1.92)] and when drug companies (not public institutions) funded the RCTs [cPR = 1.29 (CI95% 1.03 to 1.67)].

CONCLUSION

Abstracts published in high impact factor medical journals underreport harm, even when harm is reported in the main body of the article.