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.
Randomized controlled trials as topic Lasers Laser therapy Medical writing CONSORT Abstracts
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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.
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
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.2015.03.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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/cjv094PubMedGoogle Scholar
Norman G, Streiner D (2008) Biostatistics: the bare essentials, 3rd edn. BC Decker Inc, HamiltonGoogle Scholar
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.2012.05.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.2012.110609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
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.12200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
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.0b013e32833fb96fCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
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.d7501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
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
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.Medical Plastic and Aesthetic CenterStomatological Hospital of The Fourth Military Medical UniversityXi’anChina
3.School of DentistryThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK