Cargando…

Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials in Otorhinolaryngologic Literature – Adherence to the CONSORT Statement

BACKGROUND: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the preferred study design when comparing therapeutical interventions in medicine. To improve clarity, consistency and transparency of reporting RCTs, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed. OBJECTIVES: (1)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peters, Jeroen P. M., Hooft, Lotty, Grolman, Wilko, Stegeman, Inge
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4368673/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25793517
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122328
_version_ 1782362661000839168
author Peters, Jeroen P. M.
Hooft, Lotty
Grolman, Wilko
Stegeman, Inge
author_facet Peters, Jeroen P. M.
Hooft, Lotty
Grolman, Wilko
Stegeman, Inge
author_sort Peters, Jeroen P. M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the preferred study design when comparing therapeutical interventions in medicine. To improve clarity, consistency and transparency of reporting RCTs, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the quality of reports and abstracts of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic literature by using CONSORT checklists, (2) to compare the quality of reports and abstracts of otorhinolaryngologic RCTs between the top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals, and (3) to formulate recommendations for authors and editors of otorhinolaryngologic (‘ENT’) journals. METHODS: Based on 2012 ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors, the top 5 general medical and ENT journals were selected. On 25 June 2014, using a highly sensitive Cochrane RCT filter and ENT filter, possibly relevant articles since January 1st, 2010 were retrieved and relevant RCTs were selected. We assessed how many CONSORT items were reported adequately in reports and abstracts and compared the two journal types. RESULTS: Otorhinolaryngologic RCTs (n = 15) published in general medical journals reported a mean of 92.1% (95% confidence interval: 89.5%–94.7%) of CONSORT items adequately, whereas RCTs (n = 18) published in ENT journals reported a mean of 71.8% (66.7%–76.8%) adequately (p < 0.001). For abstracts, means of 70.0% (63.7%–76.3%) and 32.3% (26.6–38.0%) were found respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences for specific items exist between the two journal types. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic journals is suboptimal. RCTs published in general medical journals have a higher quality of reporting than RCTs published in ENT journals. We recommend authors to report their trial according to the CONSORT Statement and advise editors to endorse the CONSORT Statement and implement the CONSORT Statement in the editorial process to ensure more adequate reporting of RCTs and their abstracts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4368673
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43686732015-03-27 Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials in Otorhinolaryngologic Literature – Adherence to the CONSORT Statement Peters, Jeroen P. M. Hooft, Lotty Grolman, Wilko Stegeman, Inge PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the preferred study design when comparing therapeutical interventions in medicine. To improve clarity, consistency and transparency of reporting RCTs, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the quality of reports and abstracts of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic literature by using CONSORT checklists, (2) to compare the quality of reports and abstracts of otorhinolaryngologic RCTs between the top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals, and (3) to formulate recommendations for authors and editors of otorhinolaryngologic (‘ENT’) journals. METHODS: Based on 2012 ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors, the top 5 general medical and ENT journals were selected. On 25 June 2014, using a highly sensitive Cochrane RCT filter and ENT filter, possibly relevant articles since January 1st, 2010 were retrieved and relevant RCTs were selected. We assessed how many CONSORT items were reported adequately in reports and abstracts and compared the two journal types. RESULTS: Otorhinolaryngologic RCTs (n = 15) published in general medical journals reported a mean of 92.1% (95% confidence interval: 89.5%–94.7%) of CONSORT items adequately, whereas RCTs (n = 18) published in ENT journals reported a mean of 71.8% (66.7%–76.8%) adequately (p < 0.001). For abstracts, means of 70.0% (63.7%–76.3%) and 32.3% (26.6–38.0%) were found respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences for specific items exist between the two journal types. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic journals is suboptimal. RCTs published in general medical journals have a higher quality of reporting than RCTs published in ENT journals. We recommend authors to report their trial according to the CONSORT Statement and advise editors to endorse the CONSORT Statement and implement the CONSORT Statement in the editorial process to ensure more adequate reporting of RCTs and their abstracts. Public Library of Science 2015-03-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4368673/ /pubmed/25793517 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122328 Text en © 2015 Peters et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Peters, Jeroen P. M.
Hooft, Lotty
Grolman, Wilko
Stegeman, Inge
Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials in Otorhinolaryngologic Literature – Adherence to the CONSORT Statement
title Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials in Otorhinolaryngologic Literature – Adherence to the CONSORT Statement
title_full Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials in Otorhinolaryngologic Literature – Adherence to the CONSORT Statement
title_fullStr Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials in Otorhinolaryngologic Literature – Adherence to the CONSORT Statement
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials in Otorhinolaryngologic Literature – Adherence to the CONSORT Statement
title_short Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials in Otorhinolaryngologic Literature – Adherence to the CONSORT Statement
title_sort assessment of the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in otorhinolaryngologic literature – adherence to the consort statement
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4368673/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25793517
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122328
work_keys_str_mv AT petersjeroenpm assessmentofthequalityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinotorhinolaryngologicliteratureadherencetotheconsortstatement
AT hooftlotty assessmentofthequalityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinotorhinolaryngologicliteratureadherencetotheconsortstatement
AT grolmanwilko assessmentofthequalityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinotorhinolaryngologicliteratureadherencetotheconsortstatement
AT stegemaninge assessmentofthequalityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinotorhinolaryngologicliteratureadherencetotheconsortstatement