Cargando…

Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals

BACKGROUND: The extended Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for Abstracts was developed to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on the abstract. To date, few data exist regardin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ghimire, Saurav, Kyung, Eunjung, Kang, Wonku, Kim, Eunyoung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3469340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22676267
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-77
_version_ 1782246063326887936
author Ghimire, Saurav
Kyung, Eunjung
Kang, Wonku
Kim, Eunyoung
author_facet Ghimire, Saurav
Kyung, Eunjung
Kang, Wonku
Kim, Eunyoung
author_sort Ghimire, Saurav
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The extended Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for Abstracts was developed to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on the abstract. To date, few data exist regarding whether it has achieved this goal. We evaluated the extent of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract statement for quality of reports on RCT abstracts by four high-impact general medical journals. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of published RCT abstracts in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in the year 2010 was conducted by two reviewers, independently extracting data from a MEDLINE/PubMed search. RESULTS: We identified 271 potential RCT abstracts meeting our inclusion criteria. More than half of the abstracts identified the study as randomized in the title (58.7%; 159/271), reported the specific objective/hypothesis (72.7%; 197/271), described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection (60.9%; 165/271), detailed the interventions for both groups (90.8%; 246/271), and clearly defined the primary outcome (94.8%; 257/271). However, the methodological quality domains were inadequately reported: allocation concealment (11.8%; 32/271) and details of blinding (21.0%; 57/271). Reporting the primary outcome results for each group was done in 84.1% (228/271). Almost all of the abstracts reported trial registration (99.3%; 269/271), whereas reports of funding and of harm or side effects from the interventions were found in only 47.6% (129/271) and 42.8% (116/271) of the abstracts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show inconsistencies and non-adherence to the CONSORT for abstract guidelines, especially in the methodological quality domains. Improvements in the quality of RCT reports can be expected by adhering to existing standards and guidelines as expressed by the CONSORT group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3469340
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34693402012-10-12 Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals Ghimire, Saurav Kyung, Eunjung Kang, Wonku Kim, Eunyoung Trials Methodology BACKGROUND: The extended Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for Abstracts was developed to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on the abstract. To date, few data exist regarding whether it has achieved this goal. We evaluated the extent of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract statement for quality of reports on RCT abstracts by four high-impact general medical journals. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of published RCT abstracts in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in the year 2010 was conducted by two reviewers, independently extracting data from a MEDLINE/PubMed search. RESULTS: We identified 271 potential RCT abstracts meeting our inclusion criteria. More than half of the abstracts identified the study as randomized in the title (58.7%; 159/271), reported the specific objective/hypothesis (72.7%; 197/271), described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection (60.9%; 165/271), detailed the interventions for both groups (90.8%; 246/271), and clearly defined the primary outcome (94.8%; 257/271). However, the methodological quality domains were inadequately reported: allocation concealment (11.8%; 32/271) and details of blinding (21.0%; 57/271). Reporting the primary outcome results for each group was done in 84.1% (228/271). Almost all of the abstracts reported trial registration (99.3%; 269/271), whereas reports of funding and of harm or side effects from the interventions were found in only 47.6% (129/271) and 42.8% (116/271) of the abstracts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show inconsistencies and non-adherence to the CONSORT for abstract guidelines, especially in the methodological quality domains. Improvements in the quality of RCT reports can be expected by adhering to existing standards and guidelines as expressed by the CONSORT group. BioMed Central 2012-06-07 /pmc/articles/PMC3469340/ /pubmed/22676267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-77 Text en Copyright ©2012 Ghimire et al.; 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 Methodology
Ghimire, Saurav
Kyung, Eunjung
Kang, Wonku
Kim, Eunyoung
Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals
title Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals
title_full Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals
title_fullStr Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals
title_short Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals
title_sort assessment of adherence to the consort statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3469340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22676267
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-77
work_keys_str_mv AT ghimiresaurav assessmentofadherencetotheconsortstatementforqualityofreportsonrandomizedcontrolledtrialabstractsfromfourhighimpactgeneralmedicaljournals
AT kyungeunjung assessmentofadherencetotheconsortstatementforqualityofreportsonrandomizedcontrolledtrialabstractsfromfourhighimpactgeneralmedicaljournals
AT kangwonku assessmentofadherencetotheconsortstatementforqualityofreportsonrandomizedcontrolledtrialabstractsfromfourhighimpactgeneralmedicaljournals
AT kimeunyoung assessmentofadherencetotheconsortstatementforqualityofreportsonrandomizedcontrolledtrialabstractsfromfourhighimpactgeneralmedicaljournals