Dataset Information

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at a leading international conference in sleep medicine (the SLEEP Annual Meeting), and to investigate the association between potential predictors and the reporting quality of trial abstracts in this field.

Design

Cross-sectional, research on research study.

Methods

A handsearch of the 2016-2018 SLEEP Annual Meeting abstract books was carried out to identify abstracts describing RCTs. Quality of reporting was assessed with the original 17-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of reporting quality. In addition, risk ratios were used to analyse the adequate reporting rate of each quality item by type of intervention and funding status.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The overall quality score (OQS, range 0-17) in accordance with the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (primary outcome), and the adequate reporting rate of each checklist item (secondary outcome).

Results

A total of 176 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OQS was 5.53 (95% CI 5.30 to 5.76). Only three quality items (objective, conclusions and funding) were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75%). None of the abstracts adequately reported authors, randomisation or outcome in the results section. According to the multivariable analysis, pharmacological interventions (p=0.018) and funding from the industry (p=0.025) were significantly associated with better reporting quality.

Conclusions

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at SLEEP Annual Meetings was suboptimal. Pharmacological intervention and funding from industry were significant predictors of better reporting quality. Joint efforts by authors and conference committees are needed to enhance the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at sleep medicine conferences, and thereby reduce relevant research waste in this field.

SUBMITTER: Hua F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6661648 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study.

Hua Fang F Sun Qiao Q Zhao Tingting T Chen Xiong X He Hong H

BMJ open 20190716 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at a leading international conference in sleep medicine (the SLEEP Annual Meeting), and to investigate the association between potential predictors and the reporting quality of trial abstracts in this field.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional, research on research study.<h4>Methods</h4>A handsearch of the 2016-2018 SLEEP Annual Meeting abstract books was carried out to identify abstracts desc ...[more]

PMID: 31315871

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse the relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication rate of conference abstracts of prosthodontic randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) presented at International Association for Dental Research (IADR) general sessions (2002-2015). DESIGN:A cross-sectional study on conference abstracts. METHODS:Conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015) were obtained. Literature search was performed in multiple databases to confirm the final publication status of conference abstracts. Two investigators independently extracted the data including conference date, origin, presentation type, exact p value, number of centres, institution type, overall conclusion, subspecialty, publication time and journal. The reporting quality of abstracts was assessed by two investigators according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. The relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication was analysed by ?2 test. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS:Not applicable. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Final publication rate, demographic characteristics and reporting quality of conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015). RESULTS:Of the 340 prosthodontic RCT abstracts, 43.24% were published. The mean time to final publication was 22.86 months. Europe contributed the most number of abstracts but Asia and Australia had the highest publication rate. Oral presentation, multicentre trial and complete denture and overdenture subspecialty were associated with a higher publication rate. Reporting quality of eligibility criteria of participants, random assignment and primary outcome results for each group correlated with a higher final publication rate. CONCLUSIONS:Over half of conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015) were unpublished. Oral presentation and multiple centres were associated with higher publication rates. Abstracts' reporting quality addressing participant recruitment, assignment and primary results correlated with trials' validity and applicability. Conference attendees may refer to this research to identify valid and applicable prosthodontic trials but should treat and apply results cautiously.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Japan Primary Care Association Annual Meetings and the factors associated with publication.DesignA retrospective observational study.ParticipantsAll abstracts presented at the Japan Primary Care Association Annual Meetings (2010-2012).Main outcome measuresPublication rates were determined by searching the MEDLINE database for full-text articles published by September 2017. Data on presentation format (oral vs poster), affiliation of the first author, number of authors, number of involved institutions, journal of publication and publication date were abstracted.ResultsOf the 1003 abstracts evaluated, 38 (3.8%, 95% CI 2.6% to 5.0%) were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the MEDLINE database. The median time to publication was 15.5 months (IQR, 9.3-29.3 months). More than 95% of published abstracts were published within 4 years. The publications appeared in 23 different journals (21 English-language journals and two Japanese-language journals). Based on univariate analysis using binary logistic regression, publication was more frequent for oral presentations (7.3%vs2.0% for poster presentations; OR 3.91,95% CI 1.98 to 7.75), and for first authors affiliated with university-associated institutions (6.4%vs2.4% for first authors affiliated with non-university-associated institutions; OR 2.75,95% CI 1.42 to 5.30). Based on multivariate analysis, oral presentation and first author affiliation with a university-associated institution were still the only independent predictive factors for publication (adjusted OR 3.50(95% CI 1.72 to 7.12) and adjusted OR 2.35(95% CI 1.19 to 4.63), respectively). Even among 151 abstracts presented orally by first authors affiliated with a university-associated institution, only 18 abstracts (11.9%) were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals.ConclusionsThe publication rate of abstracts presented at the Japan Primary Care Association Annual Meetings was extremely low. Further studies are warranted to investigate the barriers to publication among investigators who participate in conferences where the publication rate is extremely low.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts on age-related macular degeneration (AMD) healthcare, to evaluate the adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement's recommendations on minimum abstract information and to identify journal characteristics associated with abstract reporting quality.DesignCross-sectional evaluation of RCT abstracts on AMD healthcare.MethodsA PubMed search was implemented to identify RCT abstracts on AMD healthcare published in the English language between January 2004 and December 2013. Data extraction was performed by two parallel readers independently by means of a documentation format in accordance with the 16 items of the CONSORT checklist for abstracts. The total number of criteria fulfilled by an abstract was derived as primary endpoint of the investigation; incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with unadjusted 95% CI were estimated by means of multiple Poisson regression to identify journal and article characteristics (publication year, multicentre design, structured abstract recommendations, effective sample size, effective abstract word counts and journal impact factor) possibly associated with the total number of fulfilled items.Study characteristics136 of 673 identified abstracts (published in 36 different journals) fulfilled all eligibility criteria.ResultsThe median number of fulfilled items was 7 (95% CI 7 to 8). No abstract reported all 16 recommended items; the maximum total number was 14, the minimum 3 of 16 items. Multivariate analysis only demonstrated the abstracts' word counts as being significantly associated with a better reporting of abstracts (Poisson regression-based IRR 1.002, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.003).ConclusionsReporting quality of RCT abstracts on AMD investigations showed a considerable potential for improvement to meet the CONSORT abstract reporting recommendations. Furthermore, word counts of abstracts were identified as significantly associated with the overall abstract reporting quality.

Project description:The reporting of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts is of vital importance. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the association between structure format and RCT abstracts' quality of methodology reporting, informed by the current requirement and usage of structure formats by leading general medical/internal medicine journals (secondary objective).A two-part cross-sectional study. First, through hand searches, we identified all RCTs published in the top-50 high-impact general medical/internal medicine journals during July-December 2015 (n?=?370), and retrieved the 'instructions to authors' of these journals. From these, we extracted the actual usage of structure formats and headings, as well as relevant journal policies. Then, after a pilot study and sample size calculation, we assessed the methodology reporting quality of 176 IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) and 165 HS (Highly Structured) RCT abstracts sampled from 33 of the 50 selected journals, using a 9-item checklist developed based on the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines (primary outcome: overall quality score, OQS; score range 0 to 9).88% (324/370) of all identified RCT abstracts were structured, among which 66% (215/324) used the IMRaD format and 34% (109/324) used HS. According to journals' 'instructions to authors', 48% (24/50) journals required IMRaD, 32% (16/50) required HS, 8% (4/50) required unstructured, while the rest did not state any requirement on structure format. According to generalised estimation equation analysis adjusting for potential confounders and clustering effects, the OQS of HS abstracts was 0.5 (95% CI 0.1 to 1.0, p?=?0.028) higher than IMRaD abstracts. More HS abstracts reported study setting (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 1.7 to 10.0; p?=?0.001), definition of the main outcome measure (2.5; 1.3 to 4.9; p?=?0.006) and the time point for main outcome assessment (3.0; 1.5 to 6.2; p?=?0.002), whereas more IMRaD abstracts described the unit of randomisation (0.4; 0.3 to 0.8; p?=?0.004).For RCT abstracts, the IMRaD format is more frequently used and required by leading general medical/internal medicine journals than the HS format. Abstracts in the HS format report trial methodology more completely than those in the IMRaD format.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the presence of sex-specific analysis (SSA) in abstracts accepted for podium presentation at the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) and American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) annual meetings from 2016 to 2019.MethodsAbstracts accepted for podium presentation at the AANA and AOSSM annual meetings from 2016 to 2019 were selected for review. Studies that included sex as a variable in a multifactorial statistical model were considered to have performed adequate SSA. Secondary data collected included whether the abstract had a female lead or senior author, the degrees of the female authors, and the anatomic focuses of studies with SSA.ResultsOf the 891 total abstracts accepted for podium presentation at the AANA and AOSSM annual meetings from 2016 to 2019, 90 (10%) included SSA. There were 284 AANA abstracts, 24 (8%) of which reported SSA. Of the 607 AOSSM abstracts, 66 (11%) reported SSA. There were 43 female first authors (15%) and 33 female senior authors (12%) of the AANA abstracts compared with 92 female first authors (15%) and 39 female senior authors (6%) of the AOSSM abstracts. Of the 891 total abstracts, 135 (15%) listed a female lead author and 72 (8%) had a female senior author. Of the 135 female first authors, 92 (68%) had an M.D., whereas 40 of the 72 female senior authors (56%) had an M.D. Analysis of all abstracts combined showed a positive correlation between SSA and a female first author (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.035, P = .147), as well as between SSA and a female senior author (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.052, P = .059).ConclusionsFrom 2016 to 2019, only 10% of abstracts accepted for podium presentation at the AANA and AOSSM annual meetings included SSA. Altogether, women represented 15% of first authors and 8% of senior authors.Clinical relevanceThis study highlights the low percentage of SSA in abstracts presented at the AANA and AOSSM annual meetings from 2016 to 2019. Future studies should attempt to perform SSA when relevant to better evaluate differences in outcomes between male and female patients.

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

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study.

Objectives

Design

Methods

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets