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

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in splint therapy for temporomandibular disorders: Reporting quality and spin

BACKGROUND

Poor reporting quality and spin in randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts can lead to misinterpretation and distorted interpretation of results.

OBJECTIVES

This methodological study aimed to assess the reporting quality and spin among RCT abstracts on splint therapy for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and explore the association between spin and potentially related factors.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed for RCTs on splint therapy for TMD. The reporting quality of each abstract was assessed using the original 16-item CONSORT for abstracts checklist. The authors evaluated the presence and characteristics of spin only in abstracts with nonsignificant primary outcomes according to pre-determined spin strategies. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the presence of spin.

RESULTS

A total of 148 abstracts were included in the reporting quality evaluation. The mean overall CONSORT score (OCS) was 5.86 (score range: 0-16). Only interventions, objectives and conclusions were adequately reported. Of the 61 RCT abstracts included for spin analysis, spin was identified in 38 abstracts (62.3%), among which 32 abstracts (52.3%) had spin in the Results section and 21 (34.4%) had spin in the Conclusions section. A significantly lower presence of spin was found in studies with exact p-value reporting (OR: 0.170; 95% CI: 0.032-0.887; p = .036) and a two-arm comparison design (OR: 11.777; 95% CI: 2.171-63.877; p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts on splint therapy for TMD is suboptimal and the prevalence of spin is high. More awareness and joint efforts are needed to improve reporting quality and minimize 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.

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.

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.

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.

The degree of adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines for the abstracts of randomised clinical trials published in anaesthesia journals: A cross-sectional study of reporting adherence in 2010 and 2016

BACKGROUND

Abstracts are intended to be concise summaries of the entire randomised clinical trial (RCT). Despite their importance, few studies have examined the reporting quality of abstracts in the anaesthesiology literature.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the quality of RCT abstract reporting according to the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines and determine whether recommended items omitted from the abstract were present in the body of the article.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study of RCTs.

SETTING

This study was performed at the University of Western Ontario and University Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre.

PARTICIPANTS

All RCTs meeting inclusion criteria that were published in 2010 or 2016 in six general anaesthesiology journals (Anaesthesia, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anesthesiology, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia and European Journal of Anaesthesiology).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The 16 checklist items from the CONSORT for Abstracts statement were used to create a convenience score as a proxy for RCT abstract reporting quality, with each criterion measured as being reported in abstract, not reported in abstract but reported in full-text article, or not reported in abstract or full-text article.

RESULTS

Of the 395 RCTs identified, 219 were published in 2010 and 176 were published in 2016. Out of the maximum possible score of 16, the median abstract score increased from 4 points [interquartile range (IQR): 3 to 5] in 2010 to 6 points [IQR: 5 to 8] in 2016. Although most checklist items showed improvement from 2010 to 2016, around 75% of RCTs in 2016 met fewer than half of the 16 items with no RCTs reporting all 16 items in the abstract. A majority of the RCTs had the information present in the full-text. In 2016, only 71 out of 176 (40%) of RCTs reported outcomes conforming to the CONSORT guidelines (with an effect size and a confidence interval around the effect size) in the Abstract.

CONCLUSION

Abstracts for many anaesthesiology RCTs are incomplete selective summaries of the entire article.

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts on age-related macular degeneration health care: a cross-sectional quantification of the adherence to CONSORT abstract reporting recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts on age-related macular degeneration (AMD) healthcare, to evaluate the adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement's recommendations on minimum abstract information and to identify journal characteristics associated with abstract reporting quality.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional evaluation of RCT abstracts on AMD healthcare.

METHODS

A PubMed search was implemented to identify RCT abstracts on AMD healthcare published in the English language between January 2004 and December 2013. Data extraction was performed by two parallel readers independently by means of a documentation format in accordance with the 16 items of the CONSORT checklist for abstracts. The total number of criteria fulfilled by an abstract was derived as primary endpoint of the investigation; incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with unadjusted 95% CI were estimated by means of multiple Poisson regression to identify journal and article characteristics (publication year, multicentre design, structured abstract recommendations, effective sample size, effective abstract word counts and journal impact factor) possibly associated with the total number of fulfilled items.

STUDY CHARACTERISTICS

136 of 673 identified abstracts (published in 36 different journals) fulfilled all eligibility criteria.

RESULTS

The median number of fulfilled items was 7 (95% CI 7 to 8). No abstract reported all 16 recommended items; the maximum total number was 14, the minimum 3 of 16 items. Multivariate analysis only demonstrated the abstracts' word counts as being significantly associated with a better reporting of abstracts (Poisson regression-based IRR 1.002, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting quality of RCT abstracts on AMD investigations showed a considerable potential for improvement to meet the CONSORT abstract reporting recommendations. Furthermore, word counts of abstracts were identified as significantly associated with the overall abstract reporting quality.

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.

Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Periodontal Diseases in Journal Abstracts-A Cross-sectional Survey and Bibliometric Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by proper design, conduct, analysis, and reporting provide reliable information in clinical care. Reporting of RCT abstracts is of equal importance as there is evidence that many clinicians will change their clinical decisions based on RCT abstracts. The reporting quality of RCT abstracts has been suboptimal. It is not clear whether the reporting quality is related to the journal metrics. The main objective of this study is to conduct a cross-sectional survey to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs of periodontal diseases in journal abstracts and to perform a bibliometric analysis. The null hypothesis was that there is no association between the journal metrics (5-year impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and Article Influence Score), abstract metrics (word count, and number of authors), journal endorsement of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), and the overall quality of reporting of CONSORT RCT abstract-modified checklist questions.

MATERIALS

CONSORT RCT abstract extension checklist with explanation and elaboration was used and modified to assess the quality of reporting of RCT abstracts of periodontal diseases in the journal abstracts in the year 2012. Bibliometric analysis of journal metrics (5-year impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and Article Influence Score) and abstract metrics (number of authors and abstract word count), the geographic distribution, and the CONSORT-endorsing journal abstracts was compared with the reporting quality of RCT abstracts in periodontal diseases. Calibration and intrarater agreement were done before the data collection and analysis. A second reviewer was consulted for independent evaluation and clarification as needed. For descriptive analysis, the values of continuous variables were expressed as median and interquartile ranges (IQRs) and as proportion percent for binary categorical variables. For association analysis between the binary (yes/no) response variable and the continuous variable, the Mann-Whitney test (for independent samples) was used. For examining the association between 2 categorical variables, Fisher's exact test was used. The chi-square test was performed to examine the association between 2 sets of binary response variables (yes/no). A P value of < .05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were conducted using SAS, version 9.4.

RESULTS

A total of 198 RCT abstracts of periodontal diseases in the year 2012 from 57 journals were included in the study. Fifteen journals, listed as endorsers of CONSORT, contributed 108 RCT abstracts. Four journals (Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Clinical Oral Implants Research, and European Journal of Oral Implantology) contributed 84 of 198 RCT abstracts in 2012. European countries contributed the majority (n = 81, 40.91%) of RCT abstracts. Among 31 countries in this study, United States contributed the most RCTs (n = 28, 14.14%) followed by India (24, 12.12%), Italy (n = 22, 11.11%), and Brazil (n = 20, 10.1%). The frequency of journal metrics were 5-year impact factor (median 2.316; IQR: 1.439-2.970); Eigenfactor score (0.00474; 0.00202-0.01395); and Article Influence Score (0.553; 0.382-0.755). The number of authors in 198 RCT abstracts ranged between 2 and 20 (median n = 5, IQR: 4-6), whereas the word count ranged between 48 and 569 (median 235, IQR: 205-269). All RCT abstracts reported the experimental interventions (checklist question #5, frequency 100%). Some items were almost always reported-participant eligibility criteria (#3, 99%); comparison interventions (#6, 99.5%); specific objective or hypothesis (#7, 99.5%); primary outcome (#8, 99.5%); and reporting trial results as a summary (#16, 98.5%). All RCT abstracts never reported how the allocations were concealed (#11, 0) and the source of funding for the trials (#23, 0). Some items were almost always never reported-the number of participants included in the analysis for each intervention (#15, 2%); trial registration number (#21, 2.5%); name of trial register (#22, 2.5%); and how the randomization or sequence generation was done (#22). Dismal reporting was noted in many checklist questions including the identification of the study as randomized in the title #1, 51%; design of the trial #2, 32.8%; trial setting #4, 3.5%; randomization #10, 3.5%; blinding #12, 21.7%; details about blinding #13, 8.1%; number of participants randomized to each intervention #14, 26.3%; effect size #17, 13.6%; precision of the estimate of the effect #18, 6.1%; and adverse effects #19, 14.1%. Strikingly, there was a very high reporting of statistical significance #25, 92.4%. European countries, in particular, reported relatively better than other countries in essential questions such as #17 effect size reporting, and #18 precision (uncertainty), which have been largely unreported by rest of the countries. Finally, despite the majority of RCTs published in 2012 were by CONSORT-endorsing journals, there was no difference in the quality of reporting in majority of checklist items when compared with journals not listed as CONSORT endorsers. With few exceptions, there was no statistically significant association between the majority of the CONSORT RCT abstract checklist questions and the journal metrics and abstract metrics analyzed in this study. Unexpectedly, lower ranking journals in journal metrics reported certain essential checklist questions relatively better.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of RCT of periodontal diseases in the journal abstracts published in 2012 needs substantial improvement. These items have been laid out in this study to help all stakeholders-authors, clinicians, researchers, peer reviewers, journal editors, and publishers to take note and help with the improvement of the same. Despite few significant associations in the bibliometric factors analyzed with better reporting, the results overall led to the failure to reject the null hypothesis that there is no association between the journal metrics, word count, and number of authors and the quality of reporting of CONSORT RCT abstract-modified checklist questions.

Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials of Moxibustion Using STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Moxibustion (STRICTOM) and Risk of Bias (ROB)

OBJECTIVES

To assess the quality and completeness of published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of moxibustion.

METHOD

We searched six databases to retrieve eligible RCTs of moxibustion published from 2000 to December 2015. We used the STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Moxibustion (STRICTOM) and Risk of Bias (ROB) tool to assess the completeness of reporting of RCTs of moxibustion and evaluate the reporting quality of included RCTs.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies of moxibustion were analyzed using STRICTOM and ROB. Of the 34 studies, the completeness percentage of STRICTOM varied from 33% to 100% (mean 68%, median 67%). The completeness of STRICTOM items showed a rising tendency along with the publication year. The STRICTOM items of setting and context (14.7%), rationale for the control (17.6%), and response (26.4%) showed incomplete reporting. The number of RCTs that rated a low risk of bias for allocation concealment (n=6), blinding of participants and personnel (n=1), and blinding of outcome assessment (n=4) appeared to be small.

CONCLUSION

The quality of reporting of RCTs of moxibustion remains incomplete according to the STRICTOM and ROB tool at present. Researchers should consider the STRICTOM and ROB for improving not only the completeness of reporting but also the study design. General guidelines for RCTs of moxibustion are also required.

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 of critical care trial abstracts: a comparison before and after the announcement of CONSORT guideline for abstracts

Background

An extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement provides a checklist of items to improve the reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, authors of abstracts in some fields have poorly adhered to this guideline. We did an extensive literature survey to examine the quality of reporting trial abstracts in major critical care journals before and after announcement of the CONSORT guideline for abstracts.

Methods

We reviewed abstracts of RCTs published in four major critical care journals with publication dates ranging from 2006 to 2007 (pre-CONSORT) and from 2011 to 2012 (post-CONSORT): Intensive Care Medicine (ICM), Critical Care (CC), American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM), and Critical Care Medicine (CCM). For each item in the CONSORT guideline for abstracts, we considered that an abstract was well-reported when it reported a relevant item and adhered to the guideline. Our primary outcomes were to describe the proportion of abstracts that adhered to the guideline for each item in each period and the changes between the two periods. Pearson’s chi-square analysis was performed to compare adherence to the guideline between the two periods.

Results

Our inclusion criteria yielded 185 and 166 abstracts from pre- and post-CONSORT periods, respectively. Less than 50% of abstracts adequately reported trial design (16.3%), participants (44.0%), outcomes in methods (49.4%), randomization (1.8%), blinding (4.2%), numbers randomized (37.4%) and analyzed (8.4%), recruitment (4.2%), outcomes in results (16.9%), harms (27.7%), trial registration (42.2%), and funding (13.9%) in the recent period. There was significant improvement in reporting title, primary outcomes in both methods and results, interventions, harms, trial registration, and funding between the two periods (p < 0.05). Improvements were seen in reporting of participants in the Methods sections in CCM, as well as in outcomes in results and trial registration in AJRCCM and CCM, between the two periods. A significant decline was noted in reporting of interventions in Methods sections in AJRCCM and ICM, as well as the numbers randomized in Results sections in CC, over time.

Conclusions

Reporting of some items in abstracts for critical care trials improved over time, but the adherence to the CONSORT guideline for abstracts was still suboptimal.

Timing of publication of abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented in congresses: The example of the European League against Rheumatism meeting

INTRODUCTION

The EUropean League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) congress is an important meeting to present abstracts of research in rheumatology. However, information in these abstracts is insufficient and must be followed and developed in a published article. This study aims to assess to what extent abstracts presented in the EULAR Meeting are published in journals.

METHODS

We identified all abstracts of randomized controlled trials accepted for presentation at the EULAR annual meeting from 2002 to 2011. Using a standardized research, we used Pubmed to find the corresponding publication to each congress abstract. We assessed the cumulative percentage of published abstracts over time and compared the number of included patients, the outcome and the moment of outcome assessment between abstracts presented in congress and in published article.

RESULTS

A total of 1839 abstracts were analyzed. The cumulative probability of abstracts being published in journals was 16.9% (95% CI: 15.2% to 18.6%) at 12 months, 34.3% (95% CI: 32.2% to 36.5%) at 24 months, and 46.5% (95% CI: 44.2% to 48.8%) at 36 months. When evaluable, a difference between the congress and published abstracts was found in 29.0% (247/852). The most frequent difference was a different number of included patients (196/247: 79.4%).

CONCLUSION

More than half of the abstracts of randomized trials were not published three years after they were presented in EULAR meeting. Thirty percent of abstracts were different between their presented and published version.

Dependability of results in conference abstracts of randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology and author financial conflicts of interest as a factor associated with full publication

Background

Discrepancies between information in conference abstracts and full publications describing the same randomized controlled trial have been reported. The association between author conflicts of interest and the publication of randomized controlled trials is unclear.

The objective of this study was to use randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology to evaluate (1) the agreement in the reported main outcome results by comparing abstracts and corresponding publications and (2) the association between the author conflicts of interest and publication of the results presented in the abstracts.

Methods

We considered abstracts describing results of randomized controlled trials presented at the 2001–2004 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology conferences as eligible for our study. Through electronic searching and by emailing abstract authors, we identified the earliest publication (journal article) containing results of each abstract’s main outcome through November 2013. We categorized the discordance between the main outcome results in the abstract and its paired publication as qualitative (a difference in the direction of the estimated effect) or as quantitative. We used the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology categories for conflicts of interest: financial interest, employee of business with interest, consultant to business with interest, inventor/developer with patent, and receiving ≥ 1 gift from industry in the past year. We calculated the relative risks (RRs) of publication associated with the categories of conflicts of interest for abstracts with results that were statistically significant, not statistically significant, or not reported.

Results

We included 513 abstracts, 230 (44.8 %) of which reached publication. Among the 86 pairs with the same main outcome domain at the same time point, 47 pairs (54.7 %) had discordant results: qualitative discordance in 7 pairs and quantitative discordance in 40 pairs. Quantitative discordance was indicated as < 10, 10–20, > 20 %, and unclear in 14, 5, 14, and 7 pairs, respectively. First authors reporting of one or more conflicts of interest was associated with a greater likelihood of publication (RR = 1.31; 95 % CI = 1.04 to 1.64) and a shorter time-to-publication (log-rank p = 0.026). First author conflicts of interests that were associated with publication were financial support (RR = 1.50; 95 % CI = 1.19 to 1.90) and one or more gifts (RR = 1.42; 95 % CI = 1.05 to 1.92). The association between conflicts of interest and publication remained, irrespective of the statistical significance of the results.

Conclusions

More than half the abstract/publication pairs exhibited some amount of discordance in the main outcome results, calling into question the dependability of conference abstracts. Regardless of the main outcome results, the conflicts of interests of the abstract’s first author were associated with publication.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1343-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

BACKGROUND

Abstracts are often used to screen a journal article. Little is known about the reporting quality for abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cancer nursing.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the quality of abstracts reporting published RCTs in cancer nursing and examined factors contributing to better reporting quality.

METHODS

This is a literature review study. Searches were conducted in PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for English-language RCTs involving cancer nursing. Quality of abstract reporting was assessed and scored based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial statement for Abstracts (CONSORT for Abstracts). Descriptive statistics, univariate, and multivariate analyses were used to identify predictors of better quality of abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 227 eligible articles published between 1984 and 2010 from 68 journals were identified. On average 46% of the items in the CONSORT for Abstracts were reported. More than 80% of the studies addressed only 6 of the 17 items from the CONSORT for Abstracts. Items concerning randomization, blinding, and intent-to-treat analysis were reported by fewer than 30% of the studies. Publication year, word count, impact factor, number of institutes, corresponding author's country, and funding accounted for 31.6% to 33.2% of the variance of the quality of abstracts based on a multiple regression model.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality score of cancer nursing RCT abstracts was suboptimal.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Strategies to improve abstract reporting quality are needed. To ensure that essential RCT information can be reported in the abstract, journal editors may need to reassess word count limits.

Effect of regulation reform on clinical trials for registering novel therapeutic agents in Taiwan: a chronological analysis

The registration process for new drugs is crucial in the clinical application of medicines. Previously, the registration of imported novel therapeutic agents in Taiwan depended considerably on their approvals in developed countries. The Taiwanese government enacted Article 38-1 of the Regulations for Registration of Medicinal Products in September 2009. According to the new submission criteria, approvals may be exempted if the number of Taiwanese participants in the clinical trials fulfills the required threshold. The present study compared the profiles of clinical trials of novel therapeutic agents before and after the enactment of this regulation in terms of over-threshold trials, structural types, and therapeutic areas across phases. The outcome-whether the liberalization of the submission criteria functioned as an incentive to launch clinical trials in Taiwan-was also evaluated. The results revealed that the number of clinical trial applications increased after the reformed regulation was enacted, even after the over-threshold criteria were considered; however, the increase disappeared for phase III trials. Most clinical trials were for chemical products and antineoplastic agents across all phases and study periods before and after the enactment of Article 38-1. Furthermore, the increase in the number of international clinical trials conducted in Taiwan was not directly caused by the regulation reform because the percentage of investigational products fulfilling the exemption criteria did not increase. These paradoxical results were interpreted in several aspects, referring particularly to the well-established infrastructure for launching clinical trials as well as the integral environment of medical services in Taiwan.

Deficiencies in the publication and reporting of the results of systematic reviews presented at scientific medical conferences

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the publication and quality of reporting of abstracts of systematic reviews presented at scientific medical conferences.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We included all abstracts of systematic reviews published in the proceedings of nine leading international conferences in 2010. For each conference abstract, we searched PubMed (January 1, 2010, to June 2013) to identify their corresponding full publication. We assessed the extent to which conference abstracts and their corresponding journal abstract reported items included in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis for Abstracts checklist and recorded any important discrepancies between sources.

RESULTS

We identified 197 abstracts of systematic reviews, representing <1% of the total number of conference abstracts presented. Of these 53% were published in full, the median time to publication was 14 months (interquartile range, 6.6-20.1 months). Although most conference and journal abstracts reported details of included studies (conference n = 83 of 103; 81% vs. journal n = 81 of 103; 79%), size and direction of effect (76% vs. 75%), and conclusions (79% vs. 81%), many failed to report the date of search (27% vs. 25%), assessment of risk of bias (18% vs. 12%), and the result for the main efficacy outcome(s) including the number of studies (37% vs. 31%) and participants (30% vs. 20%), harms(s) (17% vs. 17%), strengths (17% vs. 13%) and limitations (36% vs. 30%) of the evidence, or funding source (1% vs. 0%). There were discrepancies between journal and corresponding conference abstracts including deletion of studies (13%), changes in reported efficacy (11%), and harm (10%) outcome(s) and changes in the nature or direction of conclusions (24%).

CONCLUSION

Despite the importance of systematic reviews in the delivery of evidence-based health care, very few are presented at scientific conferences and only half of those presented are published in full. Serious deficiencies in the reporting of abstracts of systematic reviews make it difficult for readers to reliably assess their findings.

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.

Deglucose chikusetsusaponin IVa isolated from Rhizoma Panacis Majoris induces apoptosis in human HepG2 hepatoma cells

Deglucose chikusetsusaponin IVa (DCIVa), isolated from Rhizoma Panacis Majoris, a widely used traditional Chinese medicine, is a type of oleanane triterpenoids. Various previous studies have demonstrated that oleanane triterpenoids exhibit cytotoxic activity against various types of cancer cells. However, whether DCIVa exerts an antitumor effect remains to be elucidated. The present study aimed to assess the effect of DCIVa on cancer cells using the HepG2 hepatocellular carcinoma cell line and determine the underlying mechanism. Using an MTT assay, it was demonstrated that DCIVa inhibited cell growth and viability in a dose‑ and time‑dependent manner. Typical apoptotic features, including chromatin condensation and margination at the nuclear periphery, and apoptotic body formation were induced by DCIVa and were detected by transmission electron microscopy. In addition, nuclear condensation and fragmentation were also observed by Hoechst 33258 staining. Furthermore, flow cytometric analysis revealed that DCIVa increased cell apoptosis and G2/M cell cycle arrest dose‑dependently. Western blot analysis further demonstrated that DCIVa upregulated the expression of the pro‑apoptotic protein, Bax, and downregulated the expression of the anti‑apoptotic protein, Bcl‑2. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, that DCIVa exerts potent cytotoxic effects on HepG2 cells through induction of cell apoptosis and cell cycle arrest, and may be utilized as a potential anticancer agent.

CONSORT in China: past development and future direction

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement was published in 1996, and first introduced to China in 2001. Although CONSORT has been widely accepted in high-quality international journals, we still need to have more investigation on how many Chinese journals have adopted the CONSORT Statement, and whether the quality of reporting has improved. A systematic search of the “Instructions to authors” in all Chinese medical journals in China Academic Journals (CAJ) Full-text Database was conducted up to February 2012 and only 7 journals officially listed the requirements of the CONSORT Statement. The research articles about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010 from journals which had specifically adopted the CONSORT Statement, and from 30 top journals based on the Chinese Science Citation Index (CSCI) 2011 as the control group, were identified. The quality of both cohorts of articles was assessed using the revised CONSORT Checklist and Jadad scale. A total of 1221 Chinese medical journals was identified. Only seven journals stated clearly in the “Instructions to authors” that authors should adopt the CONSORT requirement in the clinical trial paper. None of these journals is among the control group in the CSCI 2011. In the selected years, a total of 171 articles from 7 journals which had adopted CONSORT and 232 articles in the control were identified as including RCT trials. The average scores according to the revised CONSORT Checklist were 29.47 for the CONSORT-adopting journals and 25.57 for the control group; while the average scores based on the Jadad scale were 2.53 for CONSORT-adopting journals and 1.97 for the control group. Few journals among Chinese medical journals have adopted the CONSORT Statement. The overall quality of RCT reports in the 7 journals which have adopted CONSORT was better than those in the top 30 journals which have not adopteded CONSORT. The quality of RCT reports in Chinese journals needs further improvement, and the CONSORT Statement could be a very helpful guideline.

Pharmacy journal abstracts published in PubMed that abide by the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines

The purpose of this research was to determine the proportion of abstracts in pharmacy journals that are prepared according to the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria for abstracts. Certain abstracts for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) indexed in PubMed were eligible for inclusion, with the primary endpoint being median overall compliance to CONSORT recommendations for abstracts. A total of 63 RCT abstracts were included in the analysis, with only 56% of the recommended CONSORT items represented in the sample. It is recommended that pharmacy journals encourage authors to follow CONSORT recommendations for abstracts when submitting RCTs for publication.

Quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for stroke rehabilitation

Background

Results from clinical studies on acupuncture for stroke rehabilitation are contradictory. The reason for the inconsistent findings especially lie in the transparency and accuracy of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reports. This study aims to analyze the quality of reporting and its correlates in RCTs on acupuncture for stroke rehabilitation.

Methods

Quality of reporting for included papers was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from the CONSORT 2010 statement and STRICTA. An overall quality score (OQS) and a combined key methodological index score (MIS) was calculated for each trial. Then, factors associated with OQS and MIS were identified.

Results

A total of 15 RCTs were included in full text. The median OQS based on the CONSORT statement and STRICTA was 8 and 12, respectively. The significant predictors for CONSORT OQS was funding source, for STRICTA was year of publication. With regard to the MIS, no variable was associated with improved methodological quality.

Conclusions

Our study found that the overall quality of reporting on RCTs of acupuncture for stroke rehabilitation was general or good. But some items’ reporting was found where information was insufficient or inadequate in most studies which needed substantial improvement.

The rate commitment to ISO 214 standard among the persian abstracts of approved research projects at school of health management and medical informatics, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

INTRODUCTION

Commitment to abstracting standards has a very significant role in information retrieval. The present research aimed to evaluate the rate of Commitment to ISO 214 Standard among the Persian abstracts of approved research projects at School of Health Management and Medical Informatics, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This descriptive study used a researcher-made checklist to collect data, which was then analyzed through content analysis. The studied population consisted of 227 approved research projects in the School of Health Management and Medical Informatics, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences during 2001-2010. The validity of the checklist was measured by face and content validity. Data was collected through direct observations. Statistical analyzes including descriptive (frequency distribution and percent) and inferential statistics (Chi-square test) were performed in SPSS-16.

RESULTS

The highest and lowest commitment rates to ISO 214 standard were in using third person pronouns (100%) and using active verbs (34/4%), respectively. In addition, the highest commitment rates to ISO 214 standard (100%) related to mentioning third person pronouns, starting the abstract with a sentence to explain the subject of the research, abstract placement, and including keyword in 2009. On the other hand, during 2001-2003, the lowest commitment rate was observed in reporting research findings (16/7%). Moreover, various educational groups differed significantly only in commitment to study goals, providing research findings, and abstaining from using abbreviations, signs, and acronyms. Furthermore, educational level of the corresponding author was significantly related with extracting the keywords from the text. Other factors of ISO 214 standard did not have significant relations with the educational level of the corresponding author.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, a desirable rate of commitment to ISO 214 standard was observed among the Persian abstracts of approved research projects at the School of Health Management and Medical Informatics of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. However, commitment rates differed between years. In addition, commitment to ISO 214 standard was not significantly related with educational group and level.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in dental specialty journals

OBJECTIVES

A widespread assessment of the reporting of RCT abstracts published in dental journals is lacking. Our aim was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts published in leading dental specialty journals using, as a guide, the CONSORT for abstracts checklist.

METHODS

Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in seven dental specialty journals. The quality of abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified checklist based on the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

228 RCT abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions, objectives and conclusions within abstracts were adequate. Inadequately reported items included: title, participants, outcomes, random number generation, numbers randomized and effect size estimate. Randomization restrictions, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis, harms, registration and funding were rarely described.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean overall reporting quality score was suboptimal at 62.5% (95% CI: 61.9, 63.0). Significantly better abstract reporting was noted in certain specialty journals and in multicenter trials.

Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

After the publication of the CONSORT 2010 statement, few studies have been conducted to assess the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on treatment of diabetes mellitus with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the current situation of the reporting quality of RCTs in leading medical journals in China with the CONSORT 2010 statement as criteria.

METHODS

The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) electronic database was searched for RCTs on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with TCM published in the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional & Western Medicine, and the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica from January to December 2011. We excluded trials reported as "animal studies", "in vitro studies", "case studies", or "systematic reviews". The CONSORT checklist was applied by two independent raters to evaluate the reporting quality of all eligible trials after discussing and comprehending the items thoroughly. Each item in the checklist was graded as either "yes" or "no" depending on whether it had been reported by the authors.

RESULTS

We identified 27 RCTs. According to the 37 items in the CONSORT checklist, the average reporting percentage was 45.0%, in which the average reporting percentage for the "title and abstract", the "introduction", the "methods", the "results", the "discussion" and the "other information" was 33.3%, 88.9%, 36.4%, 54.4%, 71.6% and 14.8%, respectively. In the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional & Western Medicine, and the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica the average reporting percentage was 42.2%, 56.8%, and 46.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCTs in these three journals was insufficient to allow readers to assess the validity of the trials. We recommend that editors require authors to use the CONSORT statement when reporting their trial results as a condition of publication.

Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification

BACKGROUND

To better understand the efficacy of various implementation strategies, improved methods for describing and classifying the nature of these strategies are urgently required. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot the feasibility of a taxonomy to classify the nature and content of implementation strategies.

METHODS

A draft implementation taxonomy was developed based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) data collection checklist. The draft taxonomy had four domains (professional, financial, organisational and regulatory) covering 49 distinct strategies. We piloted the draft taxonomy by using it to classify the implementation strategies described in the conference abstracts of the implementation stream of the 2010 Guideline International Network Conference. Five authors classified the strategies in each abstract individually. Final categorisation was then carried out in a face-to-face consensus meeting involving three authors.

RESULTS

The implementation strategies described in 71 conference abstracts were classified. Approximately 15.5% of abstracts utilised strategies that could not be categorised using the draft taxonomy. Of those strategies that could be categorised, the majority were professionally focused (57%). A total of 41% of projects used only one implementation strategy, with 29% using two and 31% three or more. The three most commonly used strategies were changes in quality assurance, quality improvement and/or performance measurement systems, changes in information and communication technology, and distribution of guideline materials (via hard-copy, audio-visual and/or electronic means).

CONCLUSIONS

Further refinement of the draft taxonomy is required to provide hierarchical dimensions and granularity, particularly in the areas of patient-focused interventions, those concerned with audit and feedback and quality improvement, and electronic forms of implementation, including electronic decision support.

BCQ-: a body constitution questionnaire to assess Yin-Xu. Part I: establishment of a provisional version through a Delphi process

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, the individual differences are emphasized in personalized medicine. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) which prescribes tailored treatment based on each patient's different body constitution may provide new strategy to break the bottleneck of modern medicine (MM). Therefore, to integrate TCM into MM, an objective, reliable and rigorous diagnostic tool is necessary for the assessment of TCM constitution of each individual. This study aimed to develop a provisional version of the Yin-Xu Constitution Questionnaire (BCQ-), because evaluating the level of individual's Yin deficiency (Yin-Xu) by his manifestations is frequently involved in TCM clinical trials.

METHODS

The provisional version of BCQ- was developed using a step-by-step approach: 1) to form the research team and select a panel of 26 experts who had both MM and TCM educational background and professional training for Delphi method; 2) to generate questionnaire items from literature review and Delphi process, refine these items to be colloquially acceptable, and evaluate their face and content validities by Delphi process again; 3) to evaluate the difficulty of answering these questions by a pilot study with 81 participants whose age ranged from 20 to 60 years.

RESULTS

After 2 rounds of Delphi process, 22 colloquially appropriate questions were established and answered without difficulty by the 81 participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This provisional version of BCQ- appeared to have considerable face and content validities and may be the basis to develop an advanced Yin-Xu questionnaire. The reliability and validity of BCQ- were further tested in the second part of the study.

Reporting of health promotion research: addressing the quality gaps in iran

Quality of health behavior research determines usefulness of the findings for application. The authors individually scrutinized quality of a representative sample of abstracts (n=315) submitted to the 1st International and 4th National Congress on Health Education and Promotion, held in Tabriz, Iran on 16-19 May, 2011. Among the assessed abstracts, introduction section had the standard format in 18.1% (CI: 14.2-22.7%), sampling method and sample size were concurrently explained in 56.3% (CI: 50.3-62.1%), and the data in 40.6% (CI: 35.4-46.1%) were insufficient to support the conclusion section. The observed heterogeneity in the quality of Iranian research may reflect gaps in research methodology education. Revision in the current research performance is recommended to ensure a more stringent national research output.

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.

Barriers to translating EU and US CVD guidelines into practice in China

With the increasing globalization of clinical research and evidence, clinical-practice guidelines (CPGs) developed by the European Union (EU) and the USA are also becoming increasingly international. However, these CPGs can encounter barriers to their practical application. In this Perspectives article, we analyze the main obstacles to the application of EU and US CPGs for cardiovascular diseases from the unique perspective of China, and highlight some potential problems in the globalization of CPGs. Currently, China and other countries with limited independent evidence for CPG development must localize or adapt the CPGs developed by the EU, the USA, or international medical organizations, with systematic consideration of cost-effectiveness and alternative strategies on the basis of the available evidence from the native populations. At the same time, comprehensive capabilities to collect and review clinical evidence to produce population-specific CPGs should be developed.

Therapeutic potential of ginseng in the management of cardiovascular disorders

Although employed in Asian societies for thousands of years, the use of ginseng as an herbal medication for a variety of disorders has increased tremendously worldwide in recent years. Ginseng belongs to the genus Panax, of which there exists a variety, generally reflecting their geographic origin. North American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) and Asian ginseng (Panax ginseng) are two such varieties possessing a plethora of pharmacological properties, which are attributed primarily to the presence of different ginsenosides that bestow these ginsengs with distinct pharmacodynamic profiles. The many cardiovascular benefits attributed to ginseng include cardioprotection, antihypertensive effects, and attenuation of myocardial hypertrophy and heart failure. Experimental studies have revealed a number of beneficial properties of ginseng, particularly in the area of cardiac protection, where ginseng and ginsenosides have been shown to protect the ischaemic and reperfused heart in a variety of experimental models. Emerging evidence also suggests that ginseng attenuates myocardial hypertrophy, thus blunting the remodelling and heart failure processes. However, clinical evidence of efficacy is not convincing, likely owing primarily to the paucity of well designed, randomized, controlled clinical trials. Adding to the complexity in understanding the cardiovascular effects of ginseng is the fact that each of the different ginseng varieties possesses distinct cardiovascular properties, as a result of their respective ginsenoside composition, rendering it difficult to assign a general, common cardiovascular effect to ginseng. Additional challenges include the identification of mechanisms (likely multifaceted) that account for the effects of ginseng and determining which ginsenoside(s) mediate these cardiovascular properties. These concerns notwithstanding, the potential cardiovascular benefit of ginseng is worthy of further studies in view of its possible development as a cardiovascular therapeutic agent, particularly as adjunctive therapy to existing medications.

Quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials conducted in China on the treatment of cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Research in China has been rapidly gaining momentum, but as yet there is no systematic evaluation of quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of cancer pain conducted in China. Therefore, an assessment in this field is an imperative issue.

METHODS

A PubMed search of reports published between 1994 and 2009 followed by an examination and critical appraisal of reporting in RCTs on the treatment of cancer pain was conducted in China. All reports had been examined to describe their general characteristics and evaluate the quality of their reporting. Quality of reporting was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.

RESULTS

A total of 46 RCTs were included in full text. The frequency of RCTs was found to increase over time: from one (2.2%) in 1994-1997 to 28 (60.9%) in 2006-2009. There were fewer papers published in this field in foreign journals, as funding sources and opportunities for collaborative research with foreigners are still limited. Visual analogue scales were the main method of cancer pain evaluation (19 reports; 41.4%). Only 12 studies (26.1%) are deemed to have authentic randomization and 36 papers (78.3%) provided no information about blinding of either participants or investigators. In 22 papers (47.8%), there was no information about the length of time for which participants were followed. Only 15 (32.6%) of the included trials reported approval by an ethics committee and 17 (37.0%) adequately discussed informed consent.

CONCLUSION

The quality of reporting in RCTs on the treatment of cancer pain conducted in China needs to be improved. Three critical steps should be strictly conducted including randomization, blinding and follow-up. Reporting of RCTs in this field conducted in China should meet and keep up with the standards of CONSORT statement.

Reporting characteristics of cancer pain: a systematic review and quantitative analysis of research publications in palliative care journals

Objective:

A common disorder requiring symptom palliation in palliative and end-of-life care is cancer. Cancer pain is recognized as a global health burden. This paper sought to systematically examine the extent to which there is an adequate scientific research base on cancer pain and its reporting characteristics in the palliative care journal literature.

Materials and Methods:

Search conducted in MEDLINE and CINAHL sought to locate all studies published in 19 palliative/ hospice/ supportive/ end-of-life care journals from 2009 to 2010. The journals included were: American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care, BMC Palliative Care, Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care, End of Life Care Journal, European Journal of Palliative Care, Hospice Management Advisor, Indian Journal of Palliative Care, International Journal of Palliative Nursing, Internet Journal of Pain Symptom Control and Palliative Care, Journal of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy, Journal of Palliative Care, Journal of Palliative Medicine, Journal of Social Work in End-of-life and Palliative Care, Journal of Supportive Oncology, Palliative Medicine, Palliative and Supportive Care, and Supportive Care in Cancer. Journal contents were searched to identify studies that included cancer pain in abstract.

Results:

During the years 2009 and 2010, of the selected 1,569 articles published in the journals reviewed, only 5.86% (92 articles) were on cancer pain.

Conclusion:

While researchers in the field of palliative care have studied cancer pain, the total percentage for studies is still a low 5.86%. To move the field of palliative care forward so that appropriate guidelines for cancer pain management can be developed, it is critical that more research be reported upon which to base cancer pain therapy in an evidence-based palliative care model.

Quality assessment of reporting of randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding in traditional Chinese medicine RCTs: a review of 3159 RCTs identified from 260 systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which are of poor quality tend to exaggerate the effect estimate and lead to wrong or misleading conclusions. The aim of this study is to assess the quality of randomization methods, allocation concealment and blinding within traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) RCTs, discuss issues identified for current TCM RCTs, and provide suggestions for quality improvement.

METHODS

We searched Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM, 1978 to July 31, 2009) and the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2009) to collect TCM systematic reviews and meta-analyses according to inclusion/exclusion criteria, from which RCTs could be identified. The quality assessment involved whether the randomization methods, allocation concealment and blinding were adequate or not based the study reported. Stratified analyses were conducted of different types of diseases published in different journals (both Chinese and foreign) using different interventions. SPSS 15.0 software was used for statistic analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 3159 RCTs were included, of which 2580 were published in Chinese journals and 579 in foreign journals. There were 381 (12%) RCTs which used adequate randomization methods; 207 (7%) RCTs which used adequate allocation concealment and 601 (19%) which used adequate blinding; there were 130 (4%) RCTs which both used adequate randomization methods and allocation concealment; and there were only 100 (3%) RCTs which used adequate randomization methods, allocation concealment, as well as blinding. In the RCTs published in foreign journals, the adequate randomization methods, allocation concealment and blinding accounted for a relatively large proportion (25%, 26%, and 60%, respectively) and increased with years, while in the RCTs published in Chinese journals, only the adequate randomization methods improved over time. The quality of non-drug intervention (chiefly acupuncture) RCTs was higher than that of drug intervention RCTs. In drug intervention, the quality of listed drugs is higher than the others. The quality of all included RCTs of all types of diseases was generally poor and no studies that were large in size and of high quality were found.

CONCLUSION

The quality of the current TCM RCTs as judged by their publications is generally poor, especially those published in Chinese journals. In future, researchers of TCM RCTs should attach more importance to experimental design and methodological quality, receive relevant training, and improve reporting quality using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, so as to improve the quality of TCM clinical research and ensure truth and reliability of conclusions.