Cargando…

Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in leading critical care nursing journals against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist and to identify variables related with abstract reporting quality. DESIGN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Villa, Michele, Le Pera, Massimo, Cassina, Tiziano, Bottega, Michela
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10030738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36921935
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070639
_version_ 1784910445589561344
author Villa, Michele
Le Pera, Massimo
Cassina, Tiziano
Bottega, Michela
author_facet Villa, Michele
Le Pera, Massimo
Cassina, Tiziano
Bottega, Michela
author_sort Villa, Michele
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in leading critical care nursing journals against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist and to identify variables related with abstract reporting quality. DESIGN: Descriptive methodological quality review. DATA SOURCE: We searched the PubMed database and the websites of each included journal. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2021 in the first 11 Scopus-ranking (2021) critical care nursing journals that reported the results of RCTs in English that referred to the care of adult patients with acute/critical illness or their relatives and/or caregivers and conducted in ICUs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified 17-item checklist directly derived from CONSORT-A. For the primary outcome, each item was evaluated whether it was adequately reported or not and descriptive statistics were reported. An overall score was calculated by summing the results of all items and multivariate linear regression was conducted to detect potential predictors. RESULTS: Seventy-eight RCT abstracts were included in this review. The items with the highest CONSORT-A adherence were authors, objective, conclusion, participants, interventions and outcome. The randomisation item had the lowest CONSORT-A adherence, followed by trial registration, funding source, harms or side effects, recruitment, blinding and outcome results. The average CONSORT-A score was 8.5±1.5 points (of the maximum 17.5 points). Multivariate analysis indicated that the categorised word score and publication date were positively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score, while the first author’s country being in Asia was negatively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score. CONCLUSIONS: The 78 RCT abstracts showed poor overall adherence to CONSORT-A. The results indicate that the methodological reporting quality of RCT abstracts in critical care nursing journals requires improvement to facilitate assessment of the applicability and relevance of the results reported.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10030738
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100307382023-03-23 Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review Villa, Michele Le Pera, Massimo Cassina, Tiziano Bottega, Michela BMJ Open Nursing OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in leading critical care nursing journals against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist and to identify variables related with abstract reporting quality. DESIGN: Descriptive methodological quality review. DATA SOURCE: We searched the PubMed database and the websites of each included journal. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2021 in the first 11 Scopus-ranking (2021) critical care nursing journals that reported the results of RCTs in English that referred to the care of adult patients with acute/critical illness or their relatives and/or caregivers and conducted in ICUs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified 17-item checklist directly derived from CONSORT-A. For the primary outcome, each item was evaluated whether it was adequately reported or not and descriptive statistics were reported. An overall score was calculated by summing the results of all items and multivariate linear regression was conducted to detect potential predictors. RESULTS: Seventy-eight RCT abstracts were included in this review. The items with the highest CONSORT-A adherence were authors, objective, conclusion, participants, interventions and outcome. The randomisation item had the lowest CONSORT-A adherence, followed by trial registration, funding source, harms or side effects, recruitment, blinding and outcome results. The average CONSORT-A score was 8.5±1.5 points (of the maximum 17.5 points). Multivariate analysis indicated that the categorised word score and publication date were positively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score, while the first author’s country being in Asia was negatively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score. CONCLUSIONS: The 78 RCT abstracts showed poor overall adherence to CONSORT-A. The results indicate that the methodological reporting quality of RCT abstracts in critical care nursing journals requires improvement to facilitate assessment of the applicability and relevance of the results reported. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10030738/ /pubmed/36921935 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070639 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Nursing
Villa, Michele
Le Pera, Massimo
Cassina, Tiziano
Bottega, Michela
Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review
title Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review
title_full Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review
title_fullStr Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review
title_full_unstemmed Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review
title_short Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review
title_sort reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review
topic Nursing
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10030738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36921935
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070639
work_keys_str_mv AT villamichele reportingqualityofabstractsfromrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedinleadingcriticalcarenursingjournalsamethodologicalqualityreview
AT leperamassimo reportingqualityofabstractsfromrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedinleadingcriticalcarenursingjournalsamethodologicalqualityreview
AT cassinatiziano reportingqualityofabstractsfromrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedinleadingcriticalcarenursingjournalsamethodologicalqualityreview
AT bottegamichela reportingqualityofabstractsfromrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedinleadingcriticalcarenursingjournalsamethodologicalqualityreview