Saurav Ghimire1, Eunjung Kyung1, Heeyoung Lee2, Eunyoung Kim3. 1. College of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 305-764, South Korea. 2. College of Pharmacy, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-861, South Korea. 3. College of Pharmacy, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-861, South Korea. Electronic address: eykimjcb777@cau.ac.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in the field of oncology and identify characteristics associated with better reporting quality. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: All phase III trials published during 2005-2007 [before Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)] and 2010-2012 (after CONSORT) were searched electronically in MEDLINE/PubMed and retrieved for review using an 18-point overall quality score (OQS) for reporting based on the CONSORT for Abstract guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by multivariate linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved reporting quality. RESULTS: The mean OQS was 8.2 (range: 5-13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.0, 8.3) and 9.9 (range: 5-18; 95% CI: 9.7, 10.2) in the pre- and post-CONSORT periods, respectively. The method for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding details, and funding sources were missing in pre-CONSORT abstracts and insufficiently reported (<20%) in post-CONSORT abstracts. A high impact factor (P < 0.001) and the journal of publication (P < 0.001) were independent factors that were significantly associated with higher reporting quality on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in oncology showed suboptimal improvement over time. Thus, stricter adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract guidelines is needed to improve the reporting quality of RCT abstracts published in oncology.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in the field of oncology and identify characteristics associated with better reporting quality. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: All phase III trials published during 2005-2007 [before Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)] and 2010-2012 (after CONSORT) were searched electronically in MEDLINE/PubMed and retrieved for review using an 18-point overall quality score (OQS) for reporting based on the CONSORT for Abstract guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by multivariate linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved reporting quality. RESULTS: The mean OQS was 8.2 (range: 5-13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.0, 8.3) and 9.9 (range: 5-18; 95% CI: 9.7, 10.2) in the pre- and post-CONSORT periods, respectively. The method for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding details, and funding sources were missing in pre-CONSORT abstracts and insufficiently reported (<20%) in post-CONSORT abstracts. A high impact factor (P < 0.001) and the journal of publication (P < 0.001) were independent factors that were significantly associated with higher reporting quality on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in oncology showed suboptimal improvement over time. Thus, stricter adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract guidelines is needed to improve the reporting quality of RCT abstracts published in oncology.
Authors: Meredith Hays; Mary Andrews; Ramey Wilson; David Callender; Patrick G O'Malley; Kevin Douglas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 2.692
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