Dataset Information

Trial registration of abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists Meetings 2010-2016: A review of prospective trial registration and selective outcome reporting.

ABSTRACT: Mandatory prospective trial registration was introduced in 2005 to reduce publication bias and selective outcome reporting. In this study, we measured the proportion of prospective trial registration in randomized controlled trials in the anesthesia literature after this introduction, discrepancies between these trial protocols and subsequent publications, the association between being prospectively registered and reporting positive or negative results, and between being prospectively registered and achieving publication. We reviewed all abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists annual meetings between 2010-2016 and included randomized controlled trials in humans. The abstract conclusions were scored as positive or negative according to predetermined definitions. We conducted a systematic search for trial registration and subsequent publication. Of the 9789 abstracts reviewed, 1070 abstracts were included. 222 (21%) of these abstracts had undergone prospective trial registration. 168/222 (76%) had a corresponding journal publication. 81(48%) had a major discrepancy between registration and publication. 149 (67%) of the abstracts with registration had positive outcomes compared with 616 (73%) of those without (Odds Ratio 0.77; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.06; P = 0.105). Abstracts that had been registered were more likely to proceed to publication than those that had not (Odds Ratio 3.82; 95% CI 2.73 to 5.35; P < 0.001). The proportion of randomized controlled trials being prospectively registered in anesthesia remains low. Discrepancies between registry entries and corresponding journal publications are common. There was no association between prospective trial registration and subsequent positive outcomes. There was a strong association between prospective trial registration and the likelihood of progression to journal publication.

SUBMITTER: Chong SW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9255735 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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 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.DesignCross-sectional, research on research study.MethodsA 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 measuresThe 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).ResultsA 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Project description:ObjectivesAccess 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 endpointAssessment according to the percentage of compliance with the 16 CONSORT-A criteria per study.Materials and methodsThis 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionTransparent 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.

Project description:BackgroundMaterial presented at conferences is meant to provide exposure to ongoing research that could affect medical decision making based on future outcomes. It is important then to evaluate the rates of publication from conference presentations as a measure of academic quality as such research has undergone peer review and journal acceptance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the fate of abstracts presented at the Skeletal Society of Radiology Annual Meetings from 2010-2015.Materials and methodsConference abstracts were searched using Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed (which includes Medline) to locate the corresponding published reports. The data recorded for published studies included date published online, in print, or both; the journal in which it was published; and the 5-year journal impact factor. When an abstract was not confirmed as published, authors were contacted by email to verify its publication status or, if not published, the reason for nonpublication.ResultsA total of 162 abstracts were published out of 320 presented (50.6%) at the SSR conferences from 2010 to 2015 with 59.9% (85/142) of publications occurring within two years of the conference date (not counting abstracts published prior to conference). Mean time to publication was 19 months and is calculated by excluding the 20 (12.3%) abstracts that were published prior to the conference date. The median time to publication is 13 months (25th-75th percentile: 6.25-21.75). The top two journals publishing research studies from this conference were Skeletal Radiology and The American Journal of Roentgenology. These journals accepted 72 of the 162 (44.4%) studies for publication. Of the 14 authors who responded with 17 reasons for not publishing, the most common reasons were lack of time (7-41.2%), results not important enough (4-23.5%), publication not an aim (3-17.6%), and lack of resources (3-17.6%).DiscussionAt least half of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting for the Society of Skeletal Radiology are accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The majority (59.9%) of these publications were achieved within two years of the conference presentation. The rate at which presentations are published and the journals that accept the abstracts can potentially be used to compare the importance and quality of information at conferences.

Dataset Information

Trial registration of abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists Meetings 2010-2016: A review of prospective trial registration and selective outcome reporting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets