Cargando…

The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature

BACKGROUND: The stepped wedge trial (SWT) design is a type of the randomized clinical trial (RCT) design in which clusters or individuals are randomly and sequentially crossed over from control to intervention over a number of time periods. Trials using SWT design have become increasingly popular in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Mei, Jin, Yanling, Hu, Zheng Jing, Thabane, Alex, Dennis, Brittany, Gajic-Veljanoski, Olga, Paul, James, Thabane, Lehana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5898470/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29696191
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2017.08.009
_version_ 1783314129781522432
author Wang, Mei
Jin, Yanling
Hu, Zheng Jing
Thabane, Alex
Dennis, Brittany
Gajic-Veljanoski, Olga
Paul, James
Thabane, Lehana
author_facet Wang, Mei
Jin, Yanling
Hu, Zheng Jing
Thabane, Alex
Dennis, Brittany
Gajic-Veljanoski, Olga
Paul, James
Thabane, Lehana
author_sort Wang, Mei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The stepped wedge trial (SWT) design is a type of the randomized clinical trial (RCT) design in which clusters or individuals are randomly and sequentially crossed over from control to intervention over a number of time periods. Trials using SWT design have become increasingly popular in medical, behavioral and social sciences research. Therefore, complete and transparent reporting of these studies is crucial. In particular, the quality of the abstracts of their reports is important because these may be the only accessible sources for their results. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this survey were to evaluate the reporting quality of SWT abstracts and to identify factors contributing to better reporting quality. METHODS: We performed literature searches to identify relevant articles in English published from November 1987 to October 2016 in the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. At least two reviewers examined the quality of abstract reporting using the 17-item CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) Extension for Abstracts tool. Poisson regression models for incidence rate ratio (IRR) were used to identify factors associated with reporting quality (e.g., CONSORT endorsement, the number of authors, abstract format). RESULTS: A total of 92 eligible articles were identified. Only 6 from the 17 items were reported in more than 80% of the articles (e.g., the statement of conclusions, contact details for the corresponding author). In the multivariable analysis, the year of publication since 2008 (IRR: 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.33), journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement (IRR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.31), and multiple authorship (IRR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.27) were significantly associated with better reporting quality. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of SWT abstracts was suboptimal, although there have been some significant improvements since 2008. Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by journals is an essential element of improvement strategies. Also, multiple authorship is significantly associated with better quality of abstract reporting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5898470
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58984702018-04-25 The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature Wang, Mei Jin, Yanling Hu, Zheng Jing Thabane, Alex Dennis, Brittany Gajic-Veljanoski, Olga Paul, James Thabane, Lehana Contemp Clin Trials Commun Article BACKGROUND: The stepped wedge trial (SWT) design is a type of the randomized clinical trial (RCT) design in which clusters or individuals are randomly and sequentially crossed over from control to intervention over a number of time periods. Trials using SWT design have become increasingly popular in medical, behavioral and social sciences research. Therefore, complete and transparent reporting of these studies is crucial. In particular, the quality of the abstracts of their reports is important because these may be the only accessible sources for their results. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this survey were to evaluate the reporting quality of SWT abstracts and to identify factors contributing to better reporting quality. METHODS: We performed literature searches to identify relevant articles in English published from November 1987 to October 2016 in the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. At least two reviewers examined the quality of abstract reporting using the 17-item CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) Extension for Abstracts tool. Poisson regression models for incidence rate ratio (IRR) were used to identify factors associated with reporting quality (e.g., CONSORT endorsement, the number of authors, abstract format). RESULTS: A total of 92 eligible articles were identified. Only 6 from the 17 items were reported in more than 80% of the articles (e.g., the statement of conclusions, contact details for the corresponding author). In the multivariable analysis, the year of publication since 2008 (IRR: 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.33), journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement (IRR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.31), and multiple authorship (IRR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.27) were significantly associated with better reporting quality. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of SWT abstracts was suboptimal, although there have been some significant improvements since 2008. Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by journals is an essential element of improvement strategies. Also, multiple authorship is significantly associated with better quality of abstract reporting. Elsevier 2017-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5898470/ /pubmed/29696191 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2017.08.009 Text en © 2017 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Wang, Mei
Jin, Yanling
Hu, Zheng Jing
Thabane, Alex
Dennis, Brittany
Gajic-Veljanoski, Olga
Paul, James
Thabane, Lehana
The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature
title The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature
title_full The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature
title_fullStr The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature
title_full_unstemmed The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature
title_short The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature
title_sort reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: a systematic survey of the literature
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5898470/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29696191
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2017.08.009
work_keys_str_mv AT wangmei thereportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT jinyanling thereportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT huzhengjing thereportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT thabanealex thereportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT dennisbrittany thereportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT gajicveljanoskiolga thereportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT pauljames thereportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT thabanelehana thereportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT wangmei reportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT jinyanling reportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT huzhengjing reportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT thabanealex reportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT dennisbrittany reportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT gajicveljanoskiolga reportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT pauljames reportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature
AT thabanelehana reportingqualityofabstractsofsteppedwedgerandomizedtrialsissuboptimalasystematicsurveyoftheliterature