Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review.

To evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in leading critical care nursing journals against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist and to identify variables related with abstract reporting quality. Descriptive methodological quality review. We searched the PubMed database and the websites of each included journal. We included RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2021 in the first 11 Scopus-ranking (2021) critical care nursing journals that reported the results of RCTs in English that referred to the care of adult patients with acute/critical illness or their relatives and/or caregivers and conducted in ICUs. Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified 17-item checklist directly derived from CONSORT-A. For the primary outcome, each item was evaluated whether it was adequately reported or not and descriptive statistics were reported. An overall score was calculated by summing the results of all items and multivariate linear regression was conducted to detect potential predictors. Seventy-eight RCT abstracts were included in this review. The items with the highest CONSORT-A adherence were authors, objective, conclusion, participants, interventions and outcome. The randomisation item had the lowest CONSORT-A adherence, followed by trial registration, funding source, harms or side effects, recruitment, blinding and outcome results. The average CONSORT-A score was 8.5±1.5 points (of the maximum 17.5 points). Multivariate analysis indicated that the categorised word score and publication date were positively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score, while the first author's country being in Asia was negatively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score. The 78 RCT abstracts showed poor overall adherence to CONSORT-A. The results indicate that the methodological reporting quality of RCT abstracts in critical care nursing journals requires improvement to facilitate assessment of the applicability and relevance of the results reported.

Villa M ，Le Pera M ，Cassina T ，Bottega M ... -  《BMJ Open》

Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Periodontal Diseases in Journal Abstracts-A Cross-sectional Survey and Bibliometric Analysis.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by proper design, conduct, analysis, and reporting provide reliable information in clinical care. Reporting of RCT abstracts is of equal importance as there is evidence that many clinicians will change their clinical decisions based on RCT abstracts. The reporting quality of RCT abstracts has been suboptimal. It is not clear whether the reporting quality is related to the journal metrics. The main objective of this study is to conduct a cross-sectional survey to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs of periodontal diseases in journal abstracts and to perform a bibliometric analysis. The null hypothesis was that there is no association between the journal metrics (5-year impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and Article Influence Score), abstract metrics (word count, and number of authors), journal endorsement of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), and the overall quality of reporting of CONSORT RCT abstract-modified checklist questions. CONSORT RCT abstract extension checklist with explanation and elaboration was used and modified to assess the quality of reporting of RCT abstracts of periodontal diseases in the journal abstracts in the year 2012. Bibliometric analysis of journal metrics (5-year impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and Article Influence Score) and abstract metrics (number of authors and abstract word count), the geographic distribution, and the CONSORT-endorsing journal abstracts was compared with the reporting quality of RCT abstracts in periodontal diseases. Calibration and intrarater agreement were done before the data collection and analysis. A second reviewer was consulted for independent evaluation and clarification as needed. For descriptive analysis, the values of continuous variables were expressed as median and interquartile ranges (IQRs) and as proportion percent for binary categorical variables. For association analysis between the binary (yes/no) response variable and the continuous variable, the Mann-Whitney test (for independent samples) was used. For examining the association between 2 categorical variables, Fisher's exact test was used. The chi-square test was performed to examine the association between 2 sets of binary response variables (yes/no). A P value of < .05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were conducted using SAS, version 9.4. A total of 198 RCT abstracts of periodontal diseases in the year 2012 from 57 journals were included in the study. Fifteen journals, listed as endorsers of CONSORT, contributed 108 RCT abstracts. Four journals (Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Clinical Oral Implants Research, and European Journal of Oral Implantology) contributed 84 of 198 RCT abstracts in 2012. European countries contributed the majority (n = 81, 40.91%) of RCT abstracts. Among 31 countries in this study, United States contributed the most RCTs (n = 28, 14.14%) followed by India (24, 12.12%), Italy (n = 22, 11.11%), and Brazil (n = 20, 10.1%). The frequency of journal metrics were 5-year impact factor (median 2.316; IQR: 1.439-2.970); Eigenfactor score (0.00474; 0.00202-0.01395); and Article Influence Score (0.553; 0.382-0.755). The number of authors in 198 RCT abstracts ranged between 2 and 20 (median n = 5, IQR: 4-6), whereas the word count ranged between 48 and 569 (median 235, IQR: 205-269). All RCT abstracts reported the experimental interventions (checklist question #5, frequency 100%). Some items were almost always reported-participant eligibility criteria (#3, 99%); comparison interventions (#6, 99.5%); specific objective or hypothesis (#7, 99.5%); primary outcome (#8, 99.5%); and reporting trial results as a summary (#16, 98.5%). All RCT abstracts never reported how the allocations were concealed (#11, 0) and the source of funding for the trials (#23, 0). Some items were almost always never reported-the number of participants included in the analysis for each intervention (#15, 2%); trial registration number (#21, 2.5%); name of trial register (#22, 2.5%); and how the randomization or sequence generation was done (#22). Dismal reporting was noted in many checklist questions including the identification of the study as randomized in the title #1, 51%; design of the trial #2, 32.8%; trial setting #4, 3.5%; randomization #10, 3.5%; blinding #12, 21.7%; details about blinding #13, 8.1%; number of participants randomized to each intervention #14, 26.3%; effect size #17, 13.6%; precision of the estimate of the effect #18, 6.1%; and adverse effects #19, 14.1%. Strikingly, there was a very high reporting of statistical significance #25, 92.4%. European countries, in particular, reported relatively better than other countries in essential questions such as #17 effect size reporting, and #18 precision (uncertainty), which have been largely unreported by rest of the countries. Finally, despite the majority of RCTs published in 2012 were by CONSORT-endorsing journals, there was no difference in the quality of reporting in majority of checklist items when compared with journals not listed as CONSORT endorsers. With few exceptions, there was no statistically significant association between the majority of the CONSORT RCT abstract checklist questions and the journal metrics and abstract metrics analyzed in this study. Unexpectedly, lower ranking journals in journal metrics reported certain essential checklist questions relatively better. The reporting quality of RCT of periodontal diseases in the journal abstracts published in 2012 needs substantial improvement. These items have been laid out in this study to help all stakeholders-authors, clinicians, researchers, peer reviewers, journal editors, and publishers to take note and help with the improvement of the same. Despite few significant associations in the bibliometric factors analyzed with better reporting, the results overall led to the failure to reject the null hypothesis that there is no association between the journal metrics, word count, and number of authors and the quality of reporting of CONSORT RCT abstract-modified checklist questions.

Kumar S ，Mohammad H ，Vora H ，Kar K ... -  《-》

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.

Turner L ，Shamseer L ，Altman DG ，Weeks L ，Peters J ，Kober T ，Dias S ，Schulz KF ，Plint AC ，Moher D ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Has the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract reporting? A survey of four high-profile anaesthesia journals.

Can OS ，Yilmaz AA ，Hasdogan M ，Alkaya F ，Turhan SC ，Can MF ，Alanoglu Z ... -  《-》

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

The authors conducted a study to assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in leading general dental journals, investigate any improvement after the release of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts guidelines, and identify factors associated with better reporting quality. The authors searched PubMed for RCTs published in 10 leading general dental journals during the periods from 2005 to 2007 (pre-CONSORT period) and 2010 to 2012 (post-CONSORT period). The authors evaluated and scored the reporting quality of included abstracts by using the original 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The authors used risk ratios and the t test to compare the adequate reporting rate of each item and the overall quality in the 2 periods. The authors used univariate and multivariate regressions to identify predictors of better reporting quality. The authors included and evaluated 276 RCT abstracts. Investigators reported significantly more checklist items during the post-CONSORT period (mean [standard deviation {SD}], 4.53 [1.69]) than during the pre-CONSORT period (mean [SD], 3.87 [1.10]; mean difference, -0.66 [95% confidence interval, -0.99 to -0.33]; P < .001). Investigators reported 3 items-interventions, objective, and conclusions-adequately in most of the abstracts (> 80%). In contrast, the authors saw sufficient reporting of randomization, recruitment, outcome in the results section, and funding in none of the pre-CONSORT abstracts and less than 2% of the post-CONSORT abstracts. On the basis of the multivariate analysis, a higher impact factor (P < .001) and a publication date in the post-CONSORT period (P = .003) were associated significantly with higher reporting quality. The reporting quality of RCT abstracts from leading general dental journals has improved significantly, but there is still room for improvement. Joint efforts by authors, reviewers, journal editors, and other stakeholders to improve the reporting of dental RCT abstracts are needed.

Hua F ，Deng L ，Kau CH ，Jiang H ，He H ，Walsh T ... -  《-》