S Rajasekharan1, J Vandenbulcke, L Martens. 1. Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Special Care, PaeCaMeD Research, Ghent University, UZ Ghent, 1P8, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium, sivaprakash.rajasekharan@gmail.com.
Abstract
AIM: The objectives of this study are to compare the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2011 and 2012 within five paediatric dentistry journals. STUDY DESIGN: RCTs published in the years 2011 and 2012 were hand-searched by one reviewer. After randomisation and blinding, these journals were independently scored by two blinded reviewers based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist. METHODS: A total of 59 articles were included for analysis and 70 criteria were scored dichotomously as '1' when reported and '0' when not reported. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA tests were performed. RESULTS: The Gwets AC1 Inter rater reliability coefficient was calculated as 0.85 (95 % C.I 0.84-0.86) indicating excellent correlation between the two reviewers. Only 19 articles (32.2 %) reported more than half (35/70) of the expected criteria. Descriptive statistics showed that sections such as introduction, results and discussion were reported better than abstract, materials and methods and other information. One-way ANOVA tests showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the reporting of criteria across different journals and there was also no significant difference between the articles published in 2011 and 2012 (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The general quality of reporting of RCTs in paediatric dentistry journals was inadequate. Authors, reviewers and journal guidelines must work together towards a common goal for improving the quality of reporting of RCTs.
AIM: The objectives of this study are to compare the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2011 and 2012 within five paediatric dentistry journals. STUDY DESIGN: RCTs published in the years 2011 and 2012 were hand-searched by one reviewer. After randomisation and blinding, these journals were independently scored by two blinded reviewers based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist. METHODS: A total of 59 articles were included for analysis and 70 criteria were scored dichotomously as '1' when reported and '0' when not reported. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA tests were performed. RESULTS: The Gwets AC1 Inter rater reliability coefficient was calculated as 0.85 (95 % C.I 0.84-0.86) indicating excellent correlation between the two reviewers. Only 19 articles (32.2 %) reported more than half (35/70) of the expected criteria. Descriptive statistics showed that sections such as introduction, results and discussion were reported better than abstract, materials and methods and other information. One-way ANOVA tests showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the reporting of criteria across different journals and there was also no significant difference between the articles published in 2011 and 2012 (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The general quality of reporting of RCTs in paediatric dentistry journals was inadequate. Authors, reviewers and journal guidelines must work together towards a common goal for improving the quality of reporting of RCTs.
Authors: Lucy Turner; Larissa Shamseer; Douglas G Altman; Laura Weeks; Jodi Peters; Thilo Kober; Sofia Dias; Kenneth F Schulz; Amy C Plint; David Moher Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-11-14