Quality of trials reported as conference abstracts in China: How well are they reported?

Duan, Yurong; Li, Jing; Ai, Changlin; Chen, Yaolong; Chen, Peixian; Zhang, Mingming; Hopewell, Sally

doi:10.1017/s0266462309990365

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In several studies, it was reported that the information given for trials in conference proceedings is far from being optimal [18,19]. Clear, transparent and accurate reporting or research is important because it enables readers to understand what was done and to acess the applicability and relevance of the findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of reporting according to the CONSORT, STROBE and Timmer instrument at the American Burn Association (ABA) annual meetings 2000 and 2008

Knobloch

Yoon

Rennekampff

et al. 2011

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe quality of oral and poster conference presentations differ. We hypothesized that the quality of reporting is better in oral abstracts than in poster abstracts at the American Burn Association (ABA) conference meeting.MethodsAll 511 abstracts (2000: N = 259, 2008: N = 252) from the ABA annual meetings in year 2000 and 2008 were screened. RCT's and obervational studies were analyzed by two independent examiners regarding study design and quality of reporting for randomized-controlled trials (RCT) by CONSORT criteria, observational studies by the STROBE criteria and additionally the Timmer instrument.ResultsOverall, 13 RCT's in 2000 and 9 in 2008, 77 observational studies in 2000 and 98 in 2008 were identified. Of the presented abstracts, 5% (oral; 7%(n = 9) vs. poster; 3%(n = 4)) in 2000 and 4% ((oral; 5%(n = 7) vs. poster; 2%(n = 2)) in 2008 were randomized controlled trials. The amount of observational studies as well as experimental studies accepted for presentation was not significantly different between oral and poster in both years. Reporting quality of RCT was for oral vs. poster abstracts in 2000 (CONSORT; 7.2 ± 0.8 vs. 7 ± 0, p = 0.615, CI -0.72 to 1.16, Timmer; 7.8 ± 0.7 vs. 7.5 ± 0.6,) and 2008 (CONSORT; 7.2 ± 1.4 vs. 6.5 ± 1, Timmer; 9.7 ± 1.1 vs. 9.5 ± 0.7). While in 2000, oral and poster abstracts of observational studies were not significantly different for reporting quality according to STROBE (STROBE; 8.3 ± 1.7 vs. 8.9 ± 1.6, p = 0.977, CI -37.3 to 36.3, Timmer; 8.6 ± 1.5 vs. 8.5 ± 1.4, p = 0.712, CI -0.44 to 0.64), in 2008 oral observational abstracts were significantly better than posters (STROBE score; 9.4 ± 1.9 vs. 8.5 ± 2, p = 0.005, CI 0.28 to 1.54, Timmer; 9.4 ± 1.4 vs. 8.6 ± 1.7, p = 0.013, CI 0.32 to 1.28).ConclusionsPoster abstract reporting quality at the American Burn Association annual meetings in 2000 and 2008 is not necessarily inferior to oral abstracts as far as study design and reporting quality of clinical trials are concerned. The primary hypothesis has to be rejected. However, endorsement for the comprehensive use of the CONSORT and STROBE criteria might further increase the quality of reporting ABA conference abstracts in the future.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of reporting according to the CONSORT, STROBE and Timmer instrument at the American Burn Association (ABA) annual meetings 2000 and 2008

Knobloch

Yoon

Rennekampff

et al. 2011

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of our search strategy, we recovered a number of Chinese language studies, most of which were found through extensive searching in Google and Google Scholar. Some studies have noted the poor quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in leading medical journals and conference proceedings in China (Xu 2008;Duan 2009;). One study found that only 6.8% of apparent randomised controlled trials in China were authentic randomised controlled trials (Wu 2009).…”

Section: Summary Of Main Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aminophylline for bradyasystolic cardiac arrest in adults

Hurley

Magee

Green

2015

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reporting quality of these abstracts is important because systematic reviewers will in some situations decide to include a study (or not) based on the conference abstract because the full article is not available. The reporting quality of conference abstracts was assessed in different topics in health, including sports injury prevention, oncology, urology, psychiatry, surgery, and oral health [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] . However, there are no studies assessing abstracts of systematic reviews in dentistry published in the proceedings of conferences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the SBPqO meeting

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This study aimed to assess the reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO) meeting. Methods: We selected abstracts published in the SBPqO meeting proceedings of 2019 and 2020, mentioning that a systematic review was conducted in the title, objective or methods sections. One researcher performed the screening and the data extraction after a pilot test training. The following data were extracted: affiliation of the primary author, dental specialization, the term “systematic review” mentioned in the title, reporting of the objective, reporting of eligibility criteria, reporting of information sources, reporting of the number of included studies and if a meta-analysis was performed. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed with data summarized as frequencies. Results: We included 235 abstracts. A total of 20 studies were from the Universidade de Uberlândia (8.5%), and the main specialization was Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, with 47 studies (20%). Most of the studies mentioned the term “systematic review” in the title (n=219; 93.2%) and reported the objective (n=231; 98.3%). A great majority of studies did not report the eligibility criteria (n=97; 41.3%) or it was classified as unclear (n=96; 40.8%). The great majority of studies only reported the databases searched (n=103; 43.8%) or databases and date of search (n=74; 31.5%). Most of the studies reported the number of included studies (n=204; 86.8%). Conclusion: Based on this study, the reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the SBPqO meeting are satisfactory. However, there is room for improvement.

show abstract

Quality of trials reported as conference abstracts in China: How well are they reported?

Cited by 7 publications

References 18 publications

Quality of reporting according to the CONSORT, STROBE and Timmer instrument at the American Burn Association (ABA) annual meetings 2000 and 2008

Quality of reporting according to the CONSORT, STROBE and Timmer instrument at the American Burn Association (ABA) annual meetings 2000 and 2008

Aminophylline for bradyasystolic cardiac arrest in adults

Reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the SBPqO meeting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About