Abstracts Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Ten Highest-ranking Nursing Journals: Improvement in the Quality Since CONSORT Extension for Abstracts

Abstract

Background: When evaluating randomized controlled trials(RCTs), nurses usually refer to the abstracts to make an initial assessment of the results and to determine whether a full-text review is required. Aims: To determine whether the publication of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts resulted in an improvement in the abstracts report of nursing RCTs. Methods: This research was a cross-sectional study. Web of Science was searched. 200 RCTs were randomly selected from ten high-impact nursing journals. CONSORT-A checklist was used to assess abstracts. Total score on checklists, comparison on total scores between two periods, and effect factors were analyzed. Results: Mean overall adherence across all abstracts was 8.85±2.18 which significantly improved with the time span. The most poorly reported items were ‘harms’, ‘outcomes in method’, and ‘method of blinding’ which appeared in 0, 8.5% and 16.5% of abstracts, respectively. Recent year of publication(P=0.014), Journal impact factor (P=0.000), multiple center trial (P=0.000), and structured abstract (P=0.008) were associated significantly with a high reporting quality. Conclusions: Although not defined all of abstracts in nursing area, our sample reflect the general trend that there was limited adherence to the CONSORT-A among abstracts in nursing literature. It is necessary to promote and actively apply the CONSORT-A guideline.

Reporting quality for abstracts of randomised trials on child and adolescent depression prevention: a meta-epidemiological study on adherence to CONSORT for abstracts

“…In line with previous findings,28 39–41 46 59 we observed that overall reporting quality increases with the number of authors. In contrast, some studies found no such relationship 21 36 46 56–58. Other studies suggest, although not consistently,62 that the involvement of methodologists is associated with higher reporting quality 51 63 64.…”

“…We found that 98% of abstracts failed to adequately include information on how participants were assigned to interventions and that 96% of abstracts lacked complete information on whether participants, programme deliverer and data collectors/analysts were blinded. With a few exceptions,16 36 42–44 48 most previous studies reported adherence to these items of well below 10% 15 21 25 26 28–35 37–41 45 46 55–60…”

“…We observed that structured abstracts showed higher overall reporting quality compared with unstructured abstracts. With some exceptions,16 40 46 48 57 many meta-epidemiological studies have shown similar results both since21 28 36 39 41 42 56 61 and before the publication of CONSORT-A 66–72. However, a few studies also suggest that structured abstracts are not superior73–75 and that abstract structure was unrelated to reporting quality 76…”

“…In the journal-based approach, one or more journals are selected, usually top journals in a specific field with a high-impact factor and the published articles are assessed. Examples comprise studies on the abstract reporting quality in general15 16 25–27 and internal medicine,28–30 anaesthesiology,31–33 surgery,34 35 nursing36 and critical care 37. The only prior study on abstracts of psychiatric trials followed this approach as well 21.…”

“…The only prior study on abstracts of psychiatric trials followed this approach as well 21. However, the restriction to top journals could affect generalisability, as a higher impact factor may be associated with better reporting quality 21 28 36 38–42. Thus, journal-based meta-epidemiological studies might overestimate the quality of abstract reporting.…”