Cargando…

Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm

BACKGROUND: To describe how frequently harm is reported in the abstract of high impact factor medical journals. METHODS: Design and population: We carried out a blinded structured review of a random sample of 363 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) carried out on human beings, and published in high...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bernal-Delgado, Enrique, Fisher, Elliot S
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2329663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18371200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-14
_version_ 1782152757774385152
author Bernal-Delgado, Enrique
Fisher, Elliot S
author_facet Bernal-Delgado, Enrique
Fisher, Elliot S
author_sort Bernal-Delgado, Enrique
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To describe how frequently harm is reported in the abstract of high impact factor medical journals. METHODS: Design and population: We carried out a blinded structured review of a random sample of 363 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) carried out on human beings, and published in high impact factor medical journals in 2003. Main endpoint: 1) Proportion of articles reporting harm in the abstract; and 2) Proportion of articles that reported harm in the abstract when harm was reported in the main body of the article. Analysis: Corrected Prevalence Ratio (cPR) and its exact confidence interval were calculated. Non-conditional logistic regression was used. RESULTS: 363 articles and 407 possible comparisons were studied. Overall, harm was reported in 135 abstracts [37.2% (CI95%:32.2 to 42.4)]. Harm was reported in the main text of 243 articles [66.9% (CI95%: 61.8 to 71.8)] and was statistically significant in 54 articles [14.9% (CI95%: 11.4 to 19.0)]. Among the 243 articles that mentioned harm in the text, 130 articles [53.5% (CI95% 47.0 to 59.9)] reported harm in the abstract; a figure that rose to 75.9% (CI95%: 62.4 to 86.5) when the harm reported in the text was statistically significant. Harm in the abstract was more likely to be reported when statistically significant harm was reported in the main body of the article [cPR = 1.70 (CI95% 1.47 to 1.92)] and when drug companies (not public institutions) funded the RCTs [cPR = 1.29 (CI95% 1.03 to 1.67)]. CONCLUSION: Abstracts published in high impact factor medical journals underreport harm, even when harm is reported in the main body of the article.
format Text
id pubmed-2329663
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-23296632008-04-23 Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm Bernal-Delgado, Enrique Fisher, Elliot S BMC Med Res Methodol Correspondence BACKGROUND: To describe how frequently harm is reported in the abstract of high impact factor medical journals. METHODS: Design and population: We carried out a blinded structured review of a random sample of 363 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) carried out on human beings, and published in high impact factor medical journals in 2003. Main endpoint: 1) Proportion of articles reporting harm in the abstract; and 2) Proportion of articles that reported harm in the abstract when harm was reported in the main body of the article. Analysis: Corrected Prevalence Ratio (cPR) and its exact confidence interval were calculated. Non-conditional logistic regression was used. RESULTS: 363 articles and 407 possible comparisons were studied. Overall, harm was reported in 135 abstracts [37.2% (CI95%:32.2 to 42.4)]. Harm was reported in the main text of 243 articles [66.9% (CI95%: 61.8 to 71.8)] and was statistically significant in 54 articles [14.9% (CI95%: 11.4 to 19.0)]. Among the 243 articles that mentioned harm in the text, 130 articles [53.5% (CI95% 47.0 to 59.9)] reported harm in the abstract; a figure that rose to 75.9% (CI95%: 62.4 to 86.5) when the harm reported in the text was statistically significant. Harm in the abstract was more likely to be reported when statistically significant harm was reported in the main body of the article [cPR = 1.70 (CI95% 1.47 to 1.92)] and when drug companies (not public institutions) funded the RCTs [cPR = 1.29 (CI95% 1.03 to 1.67)]. CONCLUSION: Abstracts published in high impact factor medical journals underreport harm, even when harm is reported in the main body of the article. BioMed Central 2008-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC2329663/ /pubmed/18371200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-14 Text en Copyright © 2008 Bernal-Delgado and Fisher; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Correspondence
Bernal-Delgado, Enrique
Fisher, Elliot S
Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm
title Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm
title_full Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm
title_fullStr Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm
title_full_unstemmed Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm
title_short Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm
title_sort abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm
topic Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2329663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18371200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-14
work_keys_str_mv AT bernaldelgadoenrique abstractsinhighprofilejournalsoftenfailtoreportharm
AT fisherelliots abstractsinhighprofilejournalsoftenfailtoreportharm