INTRODUCTION: Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals. METHODS: Electronic searches with supplementary hand searching to identify randomized controlled trials in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, the Angle Orthodontist, the European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Journal of Orthodontics from 2006 to 2011 were undertaken. The completeness of abstract reporting was evaluated with a modified CONSORT for abstracts statement checklist. The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate examinations of statistical associations (P = 0.05). RESULTS: Abstracts of 117 randomized controlled trials were identified and assessed. Most were published in either the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (53%) or the Angle Orthodontist (23%); most abstracts (85.5%) were structured. The mean overall reporting quality score was 60.2%. In relation to individual quality items, most abstracts demonstrated clear reporting of interventions (97.4%), objectives (93.2%), and number of participants randomized (95.7%). Insufficient reporting of randomization procedures, allocation concealment, blinding, and failure to report confidence intervals and harms were almost universal. Registrations of randomized controlled trials and sources of funding were not reported in any of the identified abstracts. The highest reporting score was noted in the Journal of Orthodontics (66%; 95% confidence interval, 63.5-68.7). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in orthodontic journals is suboptimal. In view of the primacy of research abstracts, efforts should be made to improve their reporting.
INTRODUCTION: Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals. METHODS: Electronic searches with supplementary hand searching to identify randomized controlled trials in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, the Angle Orthodontist, the European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Journal of Orthodontics from 2006 to 2011 were undertaken. The completeness of abstract reporting was evaluated with a modified CONSORT for abstracts statement checklist. The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate examinations of statistical associations (P = 0.05). RESULTS: Abstracts of 117 randomized controlled trials were identified and assessed. Most were published in either the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (53%) or the Angle Orthodontist (23%); most abstracts (85.5%) were structured. The mean overall reporting quality score was 60.2%. In relation to individual quality items, most abstracts demonstrated clear reporting of interventions (97.4%), objectives (93.2%), and number of participants randomized (95.7%). Insufficient reporting of randomization procedures, allocation concealment, blinding, and failure to report confidence intervals and harms were almost universal. Registrations of randomized controlled trials and sources of funding were not reported in any of the identified abstracts. The highest reporting score was noted in the Journal of Orthodontics (66%; 95% confidence interval, 63.5-68.7). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in orthodontic journals is suboptimal. In view of the primacy of research abstracts, efforts should be made to improve their reporting.
Authors: Guowei Li; Meha Bhatt; Mei Wang; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Zainab Samaan; Lehana Thabane Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jean Joel R Bigna; Jean Jacques N Noubiap; Serra Lem Asangbeh; Lewis N Um; Paule Sandra D Sime; Elvis Temfack; Mathurin Cyrille Tejiokem Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Guowei Li; Luciana P F Abbade; Ikunna Nwosu; Yanling Jin; Alvin Leenus; Muhammad Maaz; Mei Wang; Meha Bhatt; Laura Zielinski; Nitika Sanger; Bianca Bantoto; Candice Luo; Ieta Shams; Hamnah Shahid; Yaping Chang; Guangwen Sun; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Zainab Samaan; Mitchell A H Levine; Jonathan D Adachi; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 4.615