Advertisement

Lasers in Medical Science

, Volume 31, Issue 8, pp 1583–1590 | Cite as

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

  • Lu Jin
  • Fang HuaEmail author
  • Qiang CaoEmail author
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Randomized controlled trials as topic Lasers Laser therapy Medical writing CONSORT Abstracts 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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):894–895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Richards D (2009) Critically appraising randomised trials. Evid Based Dent 10(3):88–90. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400673 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomson Reuters (2015) 2014 Journal Citation Reports® Science Edition. https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com/JCRJournalHomeAction.action. Accessed 11 Jan 2016
  11. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norman G, Streiner D (2008) Biostatistics: the bare essentials, 3rd edn. BC Decker Inc, HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 CollaborationGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):454–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 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 StomatologyThe Fourth Military Medical UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.Medical Plastic and Aesthetic CenterStomatological Hospital of The Fourth Military Medical UniversityXi’anChina
  3. 3.School of DentistryThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations