Literature DB >> 27365107

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines.

Lu Jin1,2, Fang Hua3, Qiang Cao4,5.   

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals and investigate the association between potential predictors and reporting quality. The official online archives of four leading laser medicine journals were hand-searched to identify RCTs published in 2014 and 2015. A reporting quality assessment was carried out using the original 16-item CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts checklist. For each abstract, an overall CONSORT score (OCS) was calculated (score range, 0 to 16). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of reporting quality. Chi-square (or Fisher's exact) tests were used to analyze the adequate reporting rate of each quality item by specialty area. A total of 129 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OCS was 4.5 (standard deviation, 1.3). Only three quality items (interventions, objective, conclusions) were reported adequately in most abstracts (>80 %). No abstract adequately reported results for the primary outcome, source of funding, and status of the trial. In addition, sufficient reporting of participants, outcome in the methods section, randomization, and trial registration was rare (<5 %). According to multivariable linear regression analysis, the specialty area of RCT abstracts was significantly associated with their reporting quality (P = 0.008). The reporting quality of RCT abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals is suboptimal. Joint efforts by authors, editors, and other stakeholders in the field to improve trial abstract reporting are needed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abstracts; CONSORT; Laser therapy; Lasers; Medical writing; Randomized controlled trials as topic

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27365107     DOI: 10.1007/s10103-016-2018-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lasers Med Sci        ISSN: 0268-8921            Impact factor:   3.161


  25 in total

1.  Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.

Authors:  J Concato; N Shah; R I Horwitz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-06-22       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

Authors:  Justin E Bekelman; Yan Li; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003 Jan 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts: survey of leading general dental journals.

Authors:  Fang Hua; Lijia Deng; Chung How Kau; Han Jiang; Hong He; Tanya Walsh
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.634

4.  An interrupted time series analysis showed suboptimal improvement in reporting quality of trial abstract.

Authors:  Viswas Chhapola; Soumya Tiwari; Rekha Brar; Sandeep Kumar Kanwal
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-10-31       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Improving the clarity and transparency of reporting health research: a shared obligation and responsibility.

Authors:  I Needleman; D Moher; D G Altman; K F Schulz; D R Moles; H Worthington
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 6.116

6.  Critically appraising randomised trials.

Authors:  Derek Richards
Journal:  Evid Based Dent       Date:  2009

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

Authors:  Jia-Wen Guo; Sarah J Iribarren
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.592

8.  Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research.

Authors:  Paul Glasziou; Douglas G Altman; Patrick Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Mike Clarke; Steven Julious; Susan Michie; David Moher; Elizabeth Wager
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Remarkable growth of open access in the biomedical field: analysis of PubMed articles from 2006 to 2010.

Authors:  Keiko Kurata; Tomoko Morioka; Keiko Yokoi; Mamiko Matsubayashi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis.

Authors:  Sally Hopewell; Philippe Ravaud; Gabriel Baron; Isabelle Boutron
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-06-22
View more
  4 in total

1.  Structure formats of randomised controlled trial abstracts: a cross-sectional analysis of their current usage and association with methodology reporting.

Authors:  Fang Hua; Tanya Walsh; Anne-Marie Glenny; Helen Worthington
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 4.615

2.  Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Fang Hua; Qiao Sun; Tingting Zhao; Xiong Chen; Hong He
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-07-16       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 3.  Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years.

Authors:  L Xie; W Qin; Y Gu; J-L Pathak; S Zeng; M Du
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2020-09-01

4.  Reporting quality for abstracts of randomised trials on child and adolescent depression prevention: a meta-epidemiological study on adherence to CONSORT for abstracts.

Authors:  Jascha Wiehn; Johanna Nonte; Christof Prugger
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 3.006

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.