Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts Survey of leading general dental journals

被引:33
作者
Hua, Fang [1 ,2 ]
Deng, Lijia [1 ,2 ]
Kau, Chung How [3 ]
Jiang, Han [4 ]
He, Hong [1 ,2 ]
Walsh, Tanya [5 ]
机构
[1] Wuhan Univ, State Key Lab Breeding Base Basic Sci Stomatol, Dept Orthodont, Sch & Hosp Stomatol, Wuhan 430079, Peoples R China
[2] Wuhan Univ, Minist Educ, Key Lab Oral Biomed, Wuhan 430079, Peoples R China
[3] Univ Alabama Birmingham, Sch Dent, Dept Orthodont, Birmingham, AL 35294 USA
[4] Wuhan Univ, Sch & Hosp Stomatol, Dept Prevent Dent, Wuhan 430079, Peoples R China
[5] Univ Manchester, Sch Dent, Cochrane Oral Hlth Grp, Biostat, Manchester, Lancs, England
关键词
Randomized controlled trials; abstracts; dentistry; CONSORT; research design; data reporting; CONSORT STATEMENT; MEDICAL JOURNALS; CLINICAL-TRIALS; IMPROVEMENT; ADHERENCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.adaj.2015.03.020
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background. 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. Methods. 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. Results. 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. Conclusions. The reporting quality of RCT abstracts from leading general dental journals has improved significantly, but there is still room for improvement.
引用
收藏
页码:669 / +
页数:11
相关论文
共 37 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2008, Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials
  • [2] [Anonymous], J CITATION REPORTS
  • [3] Factors affecting children's adherence to regular dental attendance A systematic review
    Badri, Parvaneh
    Saltaji, Humam
    Flores-Mir, Carlos
    Amin, Maryam
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 145 (08) : 817 - 828
  • [4] Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis
    Bala, Malgorzata M.
    Akl, Elie A.
    Sun, Xin
    Bassler, Dirk
    Mertz, Dominik
    Mejza, Filip
    Vandvik, Per Olav
    Malaga, German
    Johnston, Bradley C.
    Dahm, Philipp
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Diaz-Granados, Natalia
    Srinathan, Sadeesh K.
    Hassouneh, Basil
    Briel, Matthias
    Busse, Jason W.
    You, John J.
    Walter, Stephen D.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2013, 66 (03) : 286 - 295
  • [5] Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials - The CONSORT statement
    Begg, C
    Cho, M
    Eastwood, S
    Horton, R
    Moher, D
    Olkin, I
    Pitkin, R
    Rennie, D
    Schulz, KF
    Simel, D
    Stroup, DF
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (08): : 637 - 639
  • [6] The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: Survey of major general medical journals
    Berwanger, Otavio
    Ribeiro, Rodrigo A.
    Finkelsztejn, Alessandro
    Watanabe, Marcelo
    Suzumura, Erica A.
    Duncan, Bruce B.
    Devereaux, P. J.
    Cook, Deborah
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2009, 62 (04) : 387 - 392
  • [7] A practical approach to evidence-based dentistry: III
    Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
    Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
    Glick, Michael
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    Azarpazhooh, Amir
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2015, 146 (01) : 42 - U72
  • [8] 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, Ozlem S.
    Yilmaz, Ali A.
    Hasdogan, Menekse
    Alkaya, Filiz
    Turhan, Sanem C.
    Can, Mehmet F.
    Alanoglu, Zekeriyya
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2011, 28 (07) : 485 - 492
  • [9] TRICKS AND TRAPS IN DENTAL CLINICAL-TRIALS
    CARLOS, JP
    [J]. COMMUNITY DENTISTRY AND ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1985, 13 (02) : 79 - 81
  • [10] Assessment of the Quality of Reporting in Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Five Leading Chinese Medical Journals
    Chen, Yaolong
    Li, Jing
    Ai, Changlin
    Duan, Yurong
    Wang, Ling
    Zhang, Mingming
    Hopewell, Sally
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2010, 5 (08):