Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: A review and analysis

BMJ Open

Volumn 6, Issue 7, 2016, Pages

  Hays, Meredith ^a,b   Andrews, Mary ^a,b   Wilson, Ramey ^a,b   Callender, David ^b   O'Malley, Patrick G ^a,b   Douglas, Kevin ^a,b  

^a Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center   (United States)

^b WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

compliance; CONSORT for Abstracts; guideline; quality of report; randomized controlled trials

Indexed keywords

CHECKLIST; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; EDITOR; HUMAN; INTERNAL MEDICINE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNITED STATES; DOCUMENTATION; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PEER REVIEW; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING AS TOPIC; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84980340041     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011082     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Altman DG. Transparent reporting of trials is essential. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:1231-5.
2. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-9.
3. Rennie D. How to report randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:649.
4. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al., CONSORT Group. CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2008;5:e20.
5. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:657-62.
6. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869.
7. Saint S, Christakis DA, Saha S, et al. Journal reading habits of internists. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:881-4.
8. History. Consort. http://www.consort-statement.org/about-consort/history (accessed 26 Mar 2016).
9. CONSORT 2010. Consort. http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-2010 (accessed 26 Mar 2016).
10. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332.
11. Burns RB, Moskowitz MA, Osband MA, et al. Newspaper reporting of the medical literature. J Gen Intern Med 1995;10:19-24.
12. Ghimire S, Kyung E, Kang W, et al. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials 2012;13:77.
13. Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, et al. Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 2012;344:e4178.
14. Xu L, Li J, Zhang M, et al. Chinese authors do need CONSORT: reporting quality assessment for five leading Chinese medical journals. Trials 2008;11:75.
15. Nelson H. Systematic reviews to answer health care questions. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2014.
16. Armstrong R, Waters E, Moore L, et al. Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT. J Public Health. 2008;30:103-9.
17. Cui Q, Tian J, Song X, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist for abstracts improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials on clinical pathways? J Eval Clin Pract 2014;20:827-33.
18. Piggot M, McGee H, Feuer D. Has CONSORT improved the reporting of randomized controlled trials in the palliative care literature? A systemic review. Palliat Med 2004;18:32-8.
19. Hopewell S, Eisinga A, Clarke M. Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts. J Info Sci 2008;34:162-73.
20. Chen Y, Li J, Ai C, et al. Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomised controlled trials published in the five leading Chinese medical journals. PLoS One 2010;5: e11926.
21. Yoon U, Knoblock K. Quality of reporting in sports injury prevention abstracts according to the CONSORT and STROBE criteria in 2005 and 2008. Br J Sports Med 2012;46:202-6.
22. Science Citation Index-Medicine, General & Internal. Intellectual Property & Science, Thomson Reuters. http://science. thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=D&SC=PY (accessed 12 Apr 2016).
23. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:543-9.
24. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37:360-3.
25. Gwet K. Kappa statistic is not satisfactory for assessing the extent of agreement between raters. Gaithersburg: STATAxis Consulting, 2002:1-5. http://advancedanalyticsllc.com/irrhbk/research-papers/kappa-statistic-is-not-satisfactory.pdf (accessed 29 Mar 2016).
26. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al. Designing clinical research. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2001.
27. Pildal J, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen K, et al. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:847-57.
28. Mbuagbaw L, Thabane M, Vanniyasingam T, et al. Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: a systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials 2014;38:245-50.
29. Dechartres A, Charles P, Hopewell S, et al. Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:136-44.
30. Duff JM, Leather H, Walden EO, et al. Adequacy of published oncology randomized controlled trials to provide therapeutic details needed for clinical application. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:702-5.
31. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008;3:e3081.
32. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, et al. What ismissing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008;336:1472-4.
33. Ioannidis JP. Adverse events in randomized trials: neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1737-9.
34. Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, et al. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2009;302:977-84.
35. You B, Gan HK, Pond G, et al. Consistency in the analysis and reporting of primary end points in oncology randomized controlled trials from registration to publication: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:210-16.
36. Ghimire S, Kyung E, Lee H, et al. Oncology trial abstracts showed suboptimal improvement in reporting: a comparative before-and-after evaluation using CONSORT for Abstract guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:658-66.
37. Berwanger O, Ribeiro RA, Finkelsztejn A, et al. The quality of reporting trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62: 387-92.
38. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. Improving the reporting of quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health 2004;94:361-6.