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

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts in reports of randomised trials on child and adolescent depression prevention. Secondary objective was to examine factors associated with overall reporting quality.DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and CENTRAL.Eligibility criteriaTrials were eligible if the sample consisted of children and adolescents under 18 years with or without an increased risk for depression or subthreshold depression. We included reports published from 1 January 2003 to 8 August 2020 on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster randomised trials (CRTs) assessing universal, selective and indicated interventions aiming to prevent the onset of depression or reducing depressive symptoms.Data extraction and synthesisAs the primary outcome measure, we assessed for each trial abstract whether information recommended by CONSORT was adequately reported, inadequately reported or not reported. Moreover, we calculated a summative score of overall reporting quality and analysed associations with trial and journal characteristics.ResultsWe identified 169 eligible studies, 103 (61%) RCTs and 66 (39%) CRTs. Adequate reporting varied considerably across CONSORT items: while 9 out of 10 abstracts adequately reported the study objective, no abstract adequately provided information on blinding. Important adverse events or side effects were only adequately reported in one out of 169 abstracts. Summative scores for the abstracts’ overall reporting quality ranged from 17% to 83%, with a median of 40%. Scores were associated with the number of authors, abstract word count, journal impact factor, year of publication and abstract structure.ConclusionsReporting quality for abstracts of trials on child and adolescent depression prevention is suboptimal. To help health professionals make informed judgements, efforts for improving adherence to reporting guidelines for abstracts are needed.

Evaluation of Reporting Quality of Glaucoma Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts: Current Status and Future Perspectives

“…Fundytus et al showed that the vast majority of oncology randomized controlled trials are now funded by industry-they are larger, more likely to be positive, and published in higher impact journals than trials without industry support [31]. Furthermore, the results of a study by Wiehn et al showed that adequate reporting varied considerably across CONSORT items with information on blinding and adverse effects being the least reported [32]. Although the results of several studies have concluded that funding is mostly not included in the abstract of randomized controlled trials, it has been observed that funding is reported in the full text of the randomized controlled trial articles.…”

Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts on Aesthetic Use of Botulinum Toxin: How Much Do Abstracts Actually Tell Us?

“…Additional factors were also included as potential predictors of the abstracts' reporting quality. The variables included in the analysis were as follows: study sample size (number of included participants <100 or ≥100), journals' impact factor and quartile, number of authors, type of abstract (structured or non-structured), presence of a recommendation for the use of CONSORT statement in the journal's instructions for authors, number of clinical centers (single or multi-centric study), statistical significance of the results (favoring experimental or control treatment), hospital setting, and funding by industry [23][24][25]33]. To determine the journals' impact factor and quartile, data from the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report for 2022 were utilized and included as variables in the analysis.…”

“…For health professionals, abstracts serve as a primary source of information about a trial, influencing their decision-making in patient management. In many cases, due to time constraints or limited access to full texts, practitioners rely solely on abstracts to make treatment decisions, making the quality of abstract reporting paramount [23,24]. Furthermore, researchers conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses rely on abstracts to identify eligible studies, and poor reporting can lead to the exclusion of relevant research, potentially distorting evidence synthesis.…”

“…Furthermore, researchers conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses rely on abstracts to identify eligible studies, and poor reporting can lead to the exclusion of relevant research, potentially distorting evidence synthesis. Similarly, abstracts play a pivotal role in the literature databases, as indexers depend on adequate reporting to determine search terms and facilitate access to relevant articles [24].…”

“…By adhering to these guidelines, authors can optimize the reporting of RCT abstracts, thereby facilitating better comprehension, evaluation, and application of trial results in medical practice. Studies conducted after the publication of the CONSORT guidelines for abstracts have examined the quality of published abstracts in various branches of medicine, including dermatology and plastic surgery, and mainly reported insufficient reporting quality [21][22][23][24][25][28][29][30]. Given the increasing demand for botulinum toxin treatments, the quality of published RCTs becomes essential.…”