Dataset Information

Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To describe how frequently harm is reported in the abstract of high impact factor medical journals.

Methods

Design and population

We carried out a blinded structured review of a random sample of 363 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) carried out on human beings, and published in high impact factor medical journals in 2003. Main endpoint: 1) Proportion of articles reporting harm in the abstract; and 2) Proportion of articles that reported harm in the abstract when harm was reported in the main body of the article.

Analysis

Corrected Prevalence Ratio (cPR) and its exact confidence interval were calculated. Non-conditional logistic regression was used.

Results

363 articles and 407 possible comparisons were studied. Overall, harm was reported in 135 abstracts [37.2% (CI95%:32.2 to 42.4)]. Harm was reported in the main text of 243 articles [66.9% (CI95%: 61.8 to 71.8)] and was statistically significant in 54 articles [14.9% (CI95%: 11.4 to 19.0)]. Among the 243 articles that mentioned harm in the text, 130 articles [53.5% (CI95% 47.0 to 59.9)] reported harm in the abstract; a figure that rose to 75.9% (CI95%: 62.4 to 86.5) when the harm reported in the text was statistically significant. Harm in the abstract was more likely to be reported when statistically significant harm was reported in the main body of the article [cPR = 1.70 (CI95% 1.47 to 1.92)] and when drug companies (not public institutions) funded the RCTs [cPR = 1.29 (CI95% 1.03 to 1.67)].

Conclusion

Abstracts published in high impact factor medical journals underreport harm, even when harm is reported in the main body of the article.

SUBMITTER: Bernal-Delgado E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2329663 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm.

Bernal-Delgado Enrique E Fisher Elliot S ES

BMC medical research methodology 20080327

<h4>Background</h4>To describe how frequently harm is reported in the abstract of high impact factor medical journals.<h4>Methods</h4><h4>Design and population</h4>We carried out a blinded structured review of a random sample of 363 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) carried out on human beings, and published in high impact factor medical journals in 2003. Main endpoint: 1) Proportion of articles reporting harm in the abstract; and 2) Proportion of articles that reported harm in the abstract wh ...[more]

PMID: 18371200

Similar Datasets

Project description:In this paper we present the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of eleven open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and have been characterised as having four key characteristics: large size; broad disciplinary scope; a Gold-OA business model; and a peer-review policy that seeks to determine only the scientific soundness of the research rather than evaluate the novelty or significance of the work. Our investigation focuses on four key modes of analysis: journal outputs (the number of articles published and changes in output over time); OAMJ author characteristics (nationalities and institutional affiliations); subject areas (the disciplinary scope of OAMJs, and variations in sub-disciplinary output); and citation profiles (the citation distributions of each OAMJ, and the impact of citing journals). We found that while the total output of the eleven mega-journals grew by 14.9% between 2014 and 2015, this growth is largely attributable to the increased output of Scientific Reports and Medicine. We also found substantial variation in the geographical distribution of authors. Several journals have a relatively high proportion of Chinese authors, and we suggest this may be linked to these journals' high Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). The mega-journals were also found to vary in subject scope, with several journals publishing disproportionately high numbers of articles in certain sub-disciplines. Our citation analsysis offers support for Björk & Catani's suggestion that OAMJs's citation distributions can be similar to those of traditional journals, while noting considerable variation in citation rates across the eleven titles. We conclude that while the OAMJ term is useful as a means of grouping journals which share a set of key characteristics, there is no such thing as a "typical" mega-journal, and we suggest several areas for additional research that might help us better understand the current and future role of OAMJs in scholarly communication.

Project description:ImportanceSince the 1990s, reporting guidelines have developed that uniformly require authors to report a measure of precision (confidence intervals [CIs]) in addition to effect size.ObjectiveTo investigate the time trend of statistical inference and statistical reporting style in abstracts of major cancer journals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study reviewed all abstracts published between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2020, in 10 high-ranking cancer journals (Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Cancer Discovery, Cancer Cell, JAMA Oncology, Annals of Oncology, Molecular Cancer, Journal of Thoracic Oncology, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and Trends in Cancer) using a previously validated computerized algorithm to search the PubMed database. For the time trend analyses, 2 journals with only a few years of existence (JAMA Oncology and Trends in Cancer) were excluded.ExposuresCalendar year, journal, and type of abstract (randomized clinical trial or other).Main outcomes and measuresProportions of abstracts containing CIs, P values without CIs, and qualitative expressions of statistical significance only were compared over time among journals.ResultsOverall, 24 034 of 42 509 abstracts (56.5%) contained statistical inference. Reporting of CIs increased over time in 5 of 8 journals. From 2016 to 2020, the most prevailing statistical reporting style was the presentation of CIs (3070 of 4895 [62.7%]). However, the proportion of abstracts reporting statistical inference based solely on the terms significant or nonsignificant was still 1195 of 4895 (24.4%) during this period and was most prevalent among basic science-oriented cancer journals (eg, 63 of 66 [95.5%] in Cancer Cell). A higher prevalence of CI reporting was associated with reporting of results from randomized clinical trials and the requirement to report according to guidelines (eg, 522 of 574 [90.9%] in Lancet Oncology).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that the reporting style of statistical inference in abstracts of major cancer journals has improved over time. A requirement in journals' instructions for authors to present statistical inference in accordance with reporting guidelines and the implementation of these guidelines in submitted manuscripts on the part of journal editors may improve reporting.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines, and different editorial policies used by five leading general medical journals to implement the guidelines, on the reporting quality of abstracts of randomised trials.DesignInterrupted time series analysis.SampleWe randomly selected up to 60 primary reports of randomised trials per journal per year from five high impact, general medical journals in 2006-09, if indexed in PubMed with an electronic abstract. We excluded reports that did not include an electronic abstract, and any secondary trial publications or economic analyses. We classified journals in three categories: those not mentioning the guidelines in their instructions to authors (JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine), those referring to the guidelines in their instructions to authors but with no specific policy to implement them (BMJ), and those referring to the guidelines in their instructions to authors with an active policy to implement them (Annals of Internal Medicine and Lancet). Two authors extracted data independently using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist.Main outcomeMean number of CONSORT items reported in selected abstracts, among nine items reported in fewer than 50% of the abstracts published across the five journals in 2006.ResultsWe assessed 955 reports of abstracts of randomised trials. Journals with an active policy to enforce the guidelines showed an immediate increase in the level of mean number of items reported (increase of 1.50 items; P=0.0037). At 23 months after publication of the guidelines, the mean number of items reported per abstract for the primary outcome was 5.41 of nine items, a 53% increase compared with the expected level estimated on the basis of pre-intervention trends. The change in level or trend did not increase in journals with no policy to enforce the guidelines (BMJ, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine).ConclusionActive implementation of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines by journals can lead to improvements in the reporting of abstracts of randomised trials.

Project description:BackgroundIt is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to misconduct policies.ResultsOf 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%) journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%), duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%). Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%) websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern (16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals. The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in journals that endorsed any policy from editors' associations, Office of Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively), with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services.ConclusionsOnly a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures, journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally in order to increase public trust in the integrity of the published record in biomedicine.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in leading critical care nursing journals against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist and to identify variables related with abstract reporting quality.DesignDescriptive methodological quality review.Data sourceWe searched the PubMed database and the websites of each included journal.Eligibility criteriaWe included RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2021 in the first 11 Scopus-ranking (2021) critical care nursing journals that reported the results of RCTs in English that referred to the care of adult patients with acute/critical illness or their relatives and/or caregivers and conducted in ICUs.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified 17-item checklist directly derived from CONSORT-A. For the primary outcome, each item was evaluated whether it was adequately reported or not and descriptive statistics were reported. An overall score was calculated by summing the results of all items and multivariate linear regression was conducted to detect potential predictors.ResultsSeventy-eight RCT abstracts were included in this review. The items with the highest CONSORT-A adherence were authors, objective, conclusion, participants, interventions and outcome. The randomisation item had the lowest CONSORT-A adherence, followed by trial registration, funding source, harms or side effects, recruitment, blinding and outcome results. The average CONSORT-A score was 8.5±1.5 points (of the maximum 17.5 points). Multivariate analysis indicated that the categorised word score and publication date were positively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score, while the first author's country being in Asia was negatively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score.ConclusionsThe 78 RCT abstracts showed poor overall adherence to CONSORT-A. The results indicate that the methodological reporting quality of RCT abstracts in critical care nursing journals requires improvement to facilitate assessment of the applicability and relevance of the results reported.

Dataset Information

Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm.

Background

Methods

Design and population

Analysis

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets