Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in the field of dentofacial trauma: Reporting quality and spin

Abstract

Background/Aim Abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide a summary of the entire trial report. Their transparent, detailed, and accurate reporting is essential for clinical decision‐making and evidence‐based dental practice. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality and prevalence of spin in abstracts of RCTs in the field of dentofacial trauma. Materials and Methods The PubMed database was searched to identify RCT reports published between 2017 and 2021 in the field of dentofacial trauma. The reporting quality of abstracts was assessed according to the 16‐item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist and measured with an overall quality score (OQS, range: 0–16). Linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with reporting quality. Among the included RCTs, parallel‐group RCTs with non‐significant primary outcomes were selected for spin assessment using predefined spin strategies. Results One hundred and twelve eligible abstracts were identified and included. The mean OQS was 4.51 (SD, 1.35; 95% CI, 4.26–4.76). Abstracts with more than 250 words (p = .004) and a structured format (p = .032) had significantly better reporting quality. Of the 30 abstracts that were eligible for spin assessment, spin was identified in 23 (76.7%). Among these, spin was observed in the Conclusions sections of 22 abstracts (73.3%) and the Results sections of 9 abstracts (30.0%). Conclusions Among RCT abstracts in the field of dentofacial trauma, the reporting quality was sub‐optimal and the prevalence of spin was relatively high. Strict adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines is needed to ensure complete and transparent reporting. Relevant stakeholders need to make concerted efforts to avoid spin.

Mouthguard design, pediatric trauma, and reporting guidelines

“…In this Issue, Fang et al assessed the reporting quality and prevalence of spin in abstracts of randomized control trials (RCTs) in the field of dentofacial trauma. 59 The 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist and linear regression analysis were employed to review the content of abstracts for 112 RCTs. 60 It is critical to analyze the spin in abstracts as the reporting bias could interfere with the reader's understanding of the effectiveness of interventions in the RCTs.…”

“…Due to the dependence on abstracts, it is important to have comprehensive and unbiased language in the abstract of any article. In this Issue , Fang et al assessed the reporting quality and prevalence of spin in abstracts of randomized control trials (RCTs) in the field of dentofacial trauma 59 . The 16‐item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist and linear regression analysis were employed to review the content of abstracts for 112 RCTs 60 .…”