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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |