Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Lasers in Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Needleman I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moles DR, Worthington H (2008) Improving the clarity and transparency of reporting health research: a shared obligation and responsibility. J Dent Res 87(10):894–895

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, Michie S, Moher D, Wager E (2014) Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 383(9913):267–276. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 342(25):1887–1892. doi:10.1056/NEJM200006223422507

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Richards D (2009) Critically appraising randomised trials. Evid Based Dent 10(3):88–90. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kurata K, Morioka T, Yokoi K, Matsubayashi M (2013) Remarkable growth of open access in the biomedical field: analysis of PubMed articles from 2006 to 2010. PloS one 8(5):e60925. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hua F, Sun H, Walsh T, Worthington H, Glenny AM (2016) Open access to journal articles in dentistry: prevalence and citation impact. J Dent 47:41–48. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2016.02.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Group C (2008) CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. Plos Med 5(1):e20. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ghimire S, Kyung E, Kang W, Kim E (2012) Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials 13:77. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-77

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Hua F, Deng L, Kau CH, Jiang H, He H, Walsh T (2015) Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts: survey of leading general dental journals. J Am Dent Assoc (1939) 146(9):669–678.e661. doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2015.03.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Thomson Reuters (2015) 2014 Journal Citation Reports® Science Edition. https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com/JCRJournalHomeAction.action. Accessed 11 Jan 2016

  11. Hua F, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Worthington H (2015) Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses. Eur J Orthod. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjv094

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Norman G, Streiner D (2008) Biostatistics: the bare essentials, 3rd edn. BC Decker Inc, Hamilton

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fleming PS, Buckley N, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Pandis N (2012) Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 142(4):451–458. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Faggion CM Jr, Giannakopoulos NN (2012) Quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading journals of periodontology and implant dentistry: a survey. J Periodontol 83(10):1251–1256. doi:10.1902/jop.2012.110609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ghimire S, Kyung E, Lee H, Kim E (2014) Oncology trial abstracts showed suboptimal improvement in reporting: a comparative before-and-after evaluation using CONSORT for Abstract guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 67(6):658–666. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cui Q, Tian JH, Song XP, Yang KH (2014) Does the CONSORT checklist for abstracts improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials on clinical pathways? J Eval Clin Pract 20(6):827–833. doi:10.1111/jep.12200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Can OS, Yilmaz AA, Hasdogan M, Alkaya F, Turhan SC, Can MF, Alanoglu Z (2011) 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. Eur J Anaesthesiol 28(7):485–492. doi:10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833fb96f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Robinson KA, Dickersin K (2002) Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int J Epidemiol 31(1):150–153. doi:10.1093/Ije/31.1.150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wieland LS, Robinson KA, Dickersin K (2012) Understanding why evidence from randomised clinical trials may not be retrieved from Medline: comparison of indexed and non-indexed records. BMJ 344:d7501. doi:10.1136/bmj.d7501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Higgins JPT, Altman D, Sterne JAC (2011) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011], The Cochrane Collaboration

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lewis SC, Warlow CP (2004) How to spot bias and other potential problems in randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 75(2):181–187. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2003.025833

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289(4):454–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326(7400):1167–1170. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Dupuy A, Khosrotehrani K, Lebbe C, Rybojad M, Morel P (2003) Quality of abstracts in 3 clinical dermatology journals. Arch Dermatol 139(5):589–593. doi:10.1001/archderm.139.5.589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Guo JW, Iribarren SJ (2014) Reporting quality for abstracts of randomized controlled trials in cancer nursing research. Cancer Nurs 37(6):436–444. doi:10.1097/NCC.0000000000000112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chhapola V, Tiwari S, Brar R, Kanwal SK (2015) An interrupted time series analysis showed suboptimal improvement in reporting quality of trial abstract. J Clin Epidemiol. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.10.013

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I (2012) Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 344:e4178. doi:10.1136/bmj.e4178

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2010) Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 8:24. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-24

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

F.H. is a recipient of the President’s Doctoral Scholar Award from The University of Manchester, but this study had no explicit funding. The funding source had no involvement in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; preparation of the manuscript; or decision to publish.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology and National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases and Shaanxi Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, 145 West Changle Road, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710032, China

    Lu Jin & Qiang Cao

  2. Medical Plastic and Aesthetic Center, Stomatological Hospital of The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China

    Lu Jin & Qiang Cao

  3. School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, JR Moore Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Fang Hua

Authors
  1. Lu Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fang Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qiang Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Fang Hua or Qiang Cao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jin, L., Hua, F. & Cao, Q. Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines. Lasers Med Sci 31, 1583–1590 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-016-2018-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-016-2018-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation