Are published randomized clinical trials abstracts on periodontics reported adequately?

INTRODUCTION: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) remain the golden standard in biomedical research, which makes their reporting to a high quality essential to control RCTs’ internal validity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of abstract reporting of RCTs published in periodontic journals and their compliance with the CONSORT guidelines. METHODS: A hand search was undertaken to identify RCTs published in three periodontic journals [1] Journal of periodontology (JOP) [2], the Journal of periodontal research (JOPR) and [3] the Journal of clinical periodontology (JOCP) from 2015 to 2018.The completeness of abstract reporting was evaluated with a modified CONSORT for abstracts statement checklist. RESULTS: Abstracts of 177 randomized controlled trials were identified and assessed. The distribution of published reports was in the Journal of periodontology (JOP), (42%) the Journal of periodontal research (JOPR) (7%) and the Journal of clinical periodontology (JOCP) (51%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 49.0%(95% CI: 47.7–50.2%). Most of the abstracts (91–100%) clearly reported and described the study design as randomized in the RCTs' title and recruitment status, as well as study interventions, objective(s), outcome(s) and conclusions. There was insufficient description and reporting of the authors’ contact details, trial design, method of randomization, blinding, number of analyzed participants per group, harms, trial registration and source of funding. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in periodontic journals is suboptimal. In view of the current guidelines of reporting RCTs abstracts, efforts should be made to better reporting.