Dataset Information

Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Open access (OA) journals are becoming a publication standard for health research, but it is not clear how they differ from traditional subscription journals in the quality of research reporting. We assessed the completeness of results reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in these journals.

Methods

We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Checklist for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) to assess the completeness of reporting in abstracts of parallel-design RCTs published in subscription journals (n?=?149; New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Lancet) and OA journals (n?=?119; BioMedCentral series, PLoS journals) in 2016 and 2017.

Results

Abstracts in subscription journals completely reported 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77-81%) of 16 CONSORT-A items, compared with 65% (95% CI, 63-67%) of these items in abstracts from OA journals (P?ConclusionAbstracts of randomized controlled trials published in subscription medical journals have greater completeness of reporting than abstracts published in OA journals. OA journals should take appropriate measures to ensure that published articles contain adequate detail to facilitate understanding and quality appraisal of research reports about RCTs.

SUBMITTER: Jercic Martinic-Cezar I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6889688 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study.

Jerčić Martinić-Cezar Iva I Marušić Ana A

Trials 20191202 1

<h4>Background</h4>Open access (OA) journals are becoming a publication standard for health research, but it is not clear how they differ from traditional subscription journals in the quality of research reporting. We assessed the completeness of results reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in these journals.<h4>Methods</h4>We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Checklist for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) to assess the completeness of reporting in abstr ...[more]

PMID: 31791393

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAlong with the proliferation of Open Access (OA) publishing, the interest for comparing the scientific quality of studies published in OA journals versus subscription journals has also increased. With our study we aimed to compare the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of primary epidemiological studies and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals.MethodsIn order to identify the studies to appraise, we listed all OA and non-OA journals which published in 2013 at least one primary epidemiologic study (case-control or cohort study design), and at least one systematic review or meta-analysis in the field of oncology. For the appraisal, we picked up the first studies published in 2013 with case-control or cohort study design from OA journals (Group A; n = 12), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group B; n = 26); the first systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2013 from OA journals (Group C; n = 15), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group D; n = 32). We evaluated the methodological quality of studies by assessing the compliance of case-control and cohort studies to Newcastle and Ottawa Scale (NOS) scale, and the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale. The quality of reporting was assessed considering the adherence of case-control and cohort studies to STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist, and the adherence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist.ResultsAmong case-control and cohort studies published in OA and non-OA journals, we did not observe significant differences in the median value of NOS score (Group A: 7 (IQR 7-8) versus Group B: 8 (7-9); p = 0.5) and in the adherence to STROBE checklist (Group A, 75% versus Group B, 80%; p = 0.1). The results did not change after adjustment for impact factor. The compliance with AMSTAR and adherence to PRISMA checklist were comparable between systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals (Group C, 46.0% versus Group D, 55.0%; p = 0.06), (Group C, 72.0% versus Group D, 76.0%; p = 0.1), respectively).ConclusionThe epidemiological studies published in OA journals in the field of oncology approach the same methodological quality and quality of reporting as studies published in non-OA journals.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesReporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name.Study selectionEnglish language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals).Data extractionPotentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score.Results101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15,249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations.ConclusionsThe completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence.Systematic review registrationNot registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.

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.

Dataset Information

Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets