Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials related to implant dentistry

Background The abstract of a scientific article should be accurate and detailed in summarizing the information of the full-text because it is the first article section the reader examines. This study assessed the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts related to implant dentistry and examined associations between reporting quality and study characteristics. Methods On January 17, 2021, we searched the PubMed database for abstracts of RCTs published in high-ranked periodontology and implant dentistry journals from 2016 to 2021. For each abstract, we assessed if the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist items were reported completely, partially, or not reported. An Overall CONSORT Score (OCS) and relative score (OCS%) were calculated as a proxy to checklist adherance. Linear regression models were fitted to analyze associations between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting. Results Four hundred and thirty-four of the 678 retrieved abstracts were eligible for inclusion. The mean OCS and OCS% were 6.23 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.56) or 41.5% (SD = 10.4), respectively. Items most frequently reported included the title (n = 434; 100%), intended intervention (n = 425; 98%), and conclusions (n = 430; 99%). Participant allocation, masking, and trial registration were rarely completely reported with frequencies of 2%, 3%, and 4%, respectively. We found that number of authors, continent, type of RCT, number of centers, report of ethical approval, funding, structure, and length of the abstract were associated with reporting quality. Conclusion The reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal. Journals should start to incorporate and endorse the use of the CONSORT-A guidelines in their instructions to authors to enhance reporting quality.