Cargando…

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at a leading international conference in sleep medicine (the SLEEP Annual Meeting), and to investigate the association between potential predictors and the reporting quality of trial abstracts in t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hua, Fang, Sun, Qiao, Zhao, Tingting, Chen, Xiong, He, Hong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6661648/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31315871
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029270
_version_ 1783439493327486976
author Hua, Fang
Sun, Qiao
Zhao, Tingting
Chen, Xiong
He, Hong
author_facet Hua, Fang
Sun, Qiao
Zhao, Tingting
Chen, Xiong
He, Hong
author_sort Hua, Fang
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at a leading international conference in sleep medicine (the SLEEP Annual Meeting), and to investigate the association between potential predictors and the reporting quality of trial abstracts in this field. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, research on research study. METHODS: A handsearch of the 2016–2018 SLEEP Annual Meeting abstract books was carried out to identify abstracts describing RCTs. Quality of reporting was assessed with the original 17-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of reporting quality. In addition, risk ratios were used to analyse the adequate reporting rate of each quality item by type of intervention and funding status. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The overall quality score (OQS, range 0–17) in accordance with the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (primary outcome), and the adequate reporting rate of each checklist item (secondary outcome). RESULTS: A total of 176 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OQS was 5.53 (95% CI 5.30 to 5.76). Only three quality items (objective, conclusions and funding) were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75%). None of the abstracts adequately reported authors, randomisation or outcome in the results section. According to the multivariable analysis, pharmacological interventions (p=0.018) and funding from the industry (p=0.025) were significantly associated with better reporting quality. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at SLEEP Annual Meetings was suboptimal. Pharmacological intervention and funding from industry were significant predictors of better reporting quality. Joint efforts by authors and conference committees are needed to enhance the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at sleep medicine conferences, and thereby reduce relevant research waste in this field.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6661648
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66616482019-08-07 Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study Hua, Fang Sun, Qiao Zhao, Tingting Chen, Xiong He, Hong BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at a leading international conference in sleep medicine (the SLEEP Annual Meeting), and to investigate the association between potential predictors and the reporting quality of trial abstracts in this field. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, research on research study. METHODS: A handsearch of the 2016–2018 SLEEP Annual Meeting abstract books was carried out to identify abstracts describing RCTs. Quality of reporting was assessed with the original 17-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of reporting quality. In addition, risk ratios were used to analyse the adequate reporting rate of each quality item by type of intervention and funding status. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The overall quality score (OQS, range 0–17) in accordance with the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (primary outcome), and the adequate reporting rate of each checklist item (secondary outcome). RESULTS: A total of 176 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OQS was 5.53 (95% CI 5.30 to 5.76). Only three quality items (objective, conclusions and funding) were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75%). None of the abstracts adequately reported authors, randomisation or outcome in the results section. According to the multivariable analysis, pharmacological interventions (p=0.018) and funding from the industry (p=0.025) were significantly associated with better reporting quality. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at SLEEP Annual Meetings was suboptimal. Pharmacological intervention and funding from industry were significant predictors of better reporting quality. Joint efforts by authors and conference committees are needed to enhance the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at sleep medicine conferences, and thereby reduce relevant research waste in this field. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6661648/ /pubmed/31315871 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029270 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. 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/.
spellingShingle Research Methods
Hua, Fang
Sun, Qiao
Zhao, Tingting
Chen, Xiong
He, Hong
Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study
title Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study
title_full Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study
title_fullStr Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study
title_short Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study
title_sort reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the sleep annual meetings: a cross-sectional study
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6661648/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31315871
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029270
work_keys_str_mv AT huafang reportingqualityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialabstractspresentedatthesleepannualmeetingsacrosssectionalstudy
AT sunqiao reportingqualityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialabstractspresentedatthesleepannualmeetingsacrosssectionalstudy
AT zhaotingting reportingqualityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialabstractspresentedatthesleepannualmeetingsacrosssectionalstudy
AT chenxiong reportingqualityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialabstractspresentedatthesleepannualmeetingsacrosssectionalstudy
AT hehong reportingqualityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialabstractspresentedatthesleepannualmeetingsacrosssectionalstudy