Cargando…

Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016

OBJECTIVES: Access to full texts of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) is often limited, so brief summaries of studies play a pivotal role. In 2008, a checklist was provided to ensure the transparency and completeness of abstracts. The aim of this investigation was to estimate adherence to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Knippschild, Stephanie, Loddenkemper, Jeremias, Tulka, Sabrina, Loddenkemper, Christine, Baulig, Christine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8365792/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34389560
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045372
_version_ 1783738781054009344
author Knippschild, Stephanie
Loddenkemper, Jeremias
Tulka, Sabrina
Loddenkemper, Christine
Baulig, Christine
author_facet Knippschild, Stephanie
Loddenkemper, Jeremias
Tulka, Sabrina
Loddenkemper, Christine
Baulig, Christine
author_sort Knippschild, Stephanie
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Access to full texts of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) is often limited, so brief summaries of studies play a pivotal role. In 2008, a checklist was provided to ensure the transparency and completeness of abstracts. The aim of this investigation was to estimate adherence to the reporting guidelines of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria for abstracts (CONSORT-A) in RCT publications. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: Assessment according to the percentage of compliance with the 16 CONSORT-A criteria per study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is based on a full survey (212 RCT abstracts in dental implantology, PubMed search, publication period 2014–2016, 45 journals, median impact factor: 2.328). In addition to merely documenting ‘adherence’ to criteria, the authors also assessed the ‘complete implementation’ of the requested information where possible. The collection of data was performed independently by two dentists, and a final consensus was reached. The primary endpoint was evaluated by medians and quartiles. Additionally, a Poisson regression was conducted to detect influencing factors. RESULTS: A median of 50% (Q1–Q3: 44%–63%) was documented for the 16 criteria listed in the CONSORT-A statement. Nine of the 16 criteria were considered in fewer than 50% of the abstracts. ‘Correct implementation’ was achieved for a median of 43% (Q1–Q3: 31%–50%) of the criteria. An additional application of Poisson regression revealed that the number of words used had a locally significant impact on the number of reported CONSORT criteria for abstracts (incidence rate ratio 1.001, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.002). CONCLUSION: Transparent and complete reporting in abstracts appears problematic. A limited word count seems to result in a reduction in necessary information. As current scientific knowledge is often not readily available in the form of publications, abstracts constitute the primary basis for decision making in clinical practice and research. This is why journals should refrain from limiting the number of words too strictly in order to facilitate comprehensive reporting in abstracts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8365792
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83657922021-08-30 Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016 Knippschild, Stephanie Loddenkemper, Jeremias Tulka, Sabrina Loddenkemper, Christine Baulig, Christine BMJ Open Dentistry and Oral Medicine OBJECTIVES: Access to full texts of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) is often limited, so brief summaries of studies play a pivotal role. In 2008, a checklist was provided to ensure the transparency and completeness of abstracts. The aim of this investigation was to estimate adherence to the reporting guidelines of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria for abstracts (CONSORT-A) in RCT publications. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: Assessment according to the percentage of compliance with the 16 CONSORT-A criteria per study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is based on a full survey (212 RCT abstracts in dental implantology, PubMed search, publication period 2014–2016, 45 journals, median impact factor: 2.328). In addition to merely documenting ‘adherence’ to criteria, the authors also assessed the ‘complete implementation’ of the requested information where possible. The collection of data was performed independently by two dentists, and a final consensus was reached. The primary endpoint was evaluated by medians and quartiles. Additionally, a Poisson regression was conducted to detect influencing factors. RESULTS: A median of 50% (Q1–Q3: 44%–63%) was documented for the 16 criteria listed in the CONSORT-A statement. Nine of the 16 criteria were considered in fewer than 50% of the abstracts. ‘Correct implementation’ was achieved for a median of 43% (Q1–Q3: 31%–50%) of the criteria. An additional application of Poisson regression revealed that the number of words used had a locally significant impact on the number of reported CONSORT criteria for abstracts (incidence rate ratio 1.001, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.002). CONCLUSION: Transparent and complete reporting in abstracts appears problematic. A limited word count seems to result in a reduction in necessary information. As current scientific knowledge is often not readily available in the form of publications, abstracts constitute the primary basis for decision making in clinical practice and research. This is why journals should refrain from limiting the number of words too strictly in order to facilitate comprehensive reporting in abstracts. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8365792/ /pubmed/34389560 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045372 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Dentistry and Oral Medicine
Knippschild, Stephanie
Loddenkemper, Jeremias
Tulka, Sabrina
Loddenkemper, Christine
Baulig, Christine
Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016
title Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016
title_full Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016
title_fullStr Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016
title_short Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016
title_sort assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016
topic Dentistry and Oral Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8365792/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34389560
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045372
work_keys_str_mv AT knippschildstephanie assessmentofreportingqualityinrandomisedcontrolledclinicaltrialabstractsofdentalimplantologypublishedfrom2014to2016
AT loddenkemperjeremias assessmentofreportingqualityinrandomisedcontrolledclinicaltrialabstractsofdentalimplantologypublishedfrom2014to2016
AT tulkasabrina assessmentofreportingqualityinrandomisedcontrolledclinicaltrialabstractsofdentalimplantologypublishedfrom2014to2016
AT loddenkemperchristine assessmentofreportingqualityinrandomisedcontrolledclinicaltrialabstractsofdentalimplantologypublishedfrom2014to2016
AT bauligchristine assessmentofreportingqualityinrandomisedcontrolledclinicaltrialabstractsofdentalimplantologypublishedfrom2014to2016