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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials on recurrent spontaneous abortion in China

Background

Despite increasing numbers of RCTs done in China, detailed information on the quality of Chinese RCTs is still missing. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RSA RCTs and to identify significant predictors of reporting quality.

Methods

A literature review was conducted with the aim of identifying published RCTs on RSA conducted in China. In order to rate the report quality, we scored 1 for the item of CONSORT 2010 if it was reported and 0 if it was not stated or unclear. An overall quality score (OQS) with a range of 0–15 and a key methodological index score (MIS) with a range of 0–3 were calculated for each trial.

Results

A total of 98 relevant RCTs were included in the final analysis. The median OQS was 7, with a minimum of 1 and maximum of 12. The general level of OQS was not high, especially among ‘sample size,’ ‘baseline data,’ ‘outcomes and estimation,’ and ‘ancillary analyses,’ all of which had a positive rate of less than 10%. The median MIS was 1 with a minimum of 0 and maximum of 1. ‘Allocation concealment,’ ‘blinding,’ and ‘intention-to-treat analysis’ were mentioned in 1 (1%), 1 (1%) and 69 (70%) of the studies, respectively. In univariate analysis, funding was the only factor associated with an increased OQS. Specifically, the mean OQS increased by approximately 1.52 for manuscripts supported by funding (95% CI: 0.12 – 2.92; p = 0.03). With regard to the MIS, no association was found for any variable.

Conclusion

RCTs of RSA conducted in China need improvement in order to meet the level of “reporting quality” required by the CONSORT statement.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0665-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.