Randomized Clinical Trials Presented at the World Congress of Endourology: How Is the Quality of Reporting?

Purpose: To assess the quality of reporting of randomized conrolled trials (RCTs) presented in abstract form at the annual World Congress of Endourology (WCE) and evaluate their course of subsequent publication. Materials and Methods: All RCTs presented in abstract form at the 2004, 2005, and 2006 WCE annual meetings were identified for review. Quality of reporting was assessed by applying a standardized 14-item evaluation tool based on the Consolidated Standards for the Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement. The subsequent publication rate for the corresponding studies by scanning Medline was also evaluated. Appropriate statistical analysis was performed. Results: A total of 94 RCTs (3.5% of 2669) were identified for review: 21 in 2004, 36 in 2005, and 37 in 2006. Overall, 45 (47.3% of the total) were subsequently published as a full length indexed manuscript with a mean time to publication of 16.4 +/- 13.2 months. Approximately 61 (60%) identified the study design as RCT in the abstract title. None reported the method of randomization. In studies that reported blinding (seven, 11% of 62), five were double blinded and two single blinded. Adverse events were reported in 38% of cases. Only 10% of the abstracts complied fully with more than 10 items according to our CONSORT-based checklist, whereas the majority of them failed to comply with most of the CONSORT requirements. Conclusions: Although representing a small portion of the overall number of abstracts, there has been a steady increase of presentation of RCTs at the WCE over the assessed 3-year period. Most of the time they are recognized as RCTs in the abstract title. When applying the CONSORT criteria, necessary information to assess their methodologic quality is incomplete in some cases.