Reporting Quality of Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Dental Specialty Journals

Seehra, Jadbinder; Wright, Natasha S; Polychronopoulou, Argy; Cobourne, Martyn T.; Pandis, Nikolaos

doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2012.11.001

Cited by 44 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because reporting quality and methodological quality of controlled trials are two different dimensions (for example, well-conducted trials may be reported poorly) (Huwiler-Müntener et al 2002), this should be evaluated in different ways. Our findings were consistent with those of previous studies in other fields of health research that reporting quality of the abstracts was suboptimal (Berwanger et al 2009;Chhapola et al 2016;Ghimire et al 2012;Guo & Iribarren 2014;Kiriakou et al 2014;Seehra et al 2013). …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…For the objective item, our finding indicated that reporting this item was adequate for both RCT and non-RCT abstracts. This finding was consistent with that of previous studies in human trials (Fleming et al 2012;Hua et al 2015;Seehra et al 2013). For the outcome item, reporting of clearly defined primary outcome was suboptimal for both RCT and non-RCT abstracts from chicken research.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…This checklist serves authors to prepare the abstract of their manuscript and has been used as a gold standard tool to evaluate reporting quality of an RCT abstract (Chhapola et al 2016;Cui et al 2014;Fleming et al 2012;Ghimire et al 2014;Guo & Iribarren 2014;Hua et al 2015;Mbuagbaw et al 2014). Findings from previous studies suggest that reporting quality of RCT abstracts from health research is suboptimal (Berwanger et al 2009;Fleming et al 2012;Ghimire et al 2012;Guo & Iribarren 2014;Kiriakou et al 2014;Seehra et al 2013). Several factors such as abstract word limit, abstract format, publication year, impact factor of the journal may be associated with reporting quality of RCT abstracts (Ghimire et al 2014;Guo & Iribarren 2014;Hua et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reporting quality of randomized and non-randomized controlled trial abstracts from chicken research

Sukon

Kongpechr

Bubpahou

et al. 2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In publication of a controlled trial article from health science research, the abstract is an important part that readers usually read first and then decide whether to read the whole article; therefore, information provided in the abstract should be adequate. The CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) for Abstracts checklist has been developed and used as a guideline for authors to prepare their manuscripts. This checklist has also been used as a tool to evaluate published abstracts. The objectives of this study were to evaluate reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) and non-RCT abstracts from chicken research and to determine factors associated with the reporting quality. We searched PubMed for RCT and non-RCT abstracts involving chicken research published between 2006 and 2015. The included abstracts were evaluated using the modified CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The primary outcome was a mean overall quality score (OQS), which, for each abstract, was a sum of items reported in the modified CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. In addition, some pre-specified factors were evaluated for their association with the reporting quality using simple and multiple linear regression analyses.A total of 949 abstracts (n=262 for RCT and n=687 for non-RCT abstracts) were included and evaluated. Although OQS was significantly greater in RCT than in non-RCT abstracts (mean ± SD, 6.7 ± 0.9 vs 3.3 ± 1.1; P-value<0.001), both mean scores were still less than half of the full score of 15. Only 2 items-objective and conclusions-were adequately reported (>80%) in both types of the abstracts. Items concerning trial design, participants, interventions, randomization, and number randomized were adequately reported only in the RCT abstracts. In contrast, items concerning the study as randomized in the title, clearly defined primary outcome, blinding, numbers analyzed, estimated effect size and its precision for the primary outcome, trial registration, and funding were not reported or reported less than 5% in both RCT and non-RCT abstracts. In this study, 4 factors-year of publication, number of trials reported, number of experimental groups reported, and sample size reported-were associated with OQS. That is, abstracts with higher OQS were published more recently, reported a single trial rather than multiple trials, reported number of experimental groups rather than not reported, and reported sample size rather than not reported. These factors explained about 37.5% of the variance of OQS. In AbstractIn publication of a controlled trial article from health science research, the abstract is an important part that readers usually read first and then decide whether to read the whole article; therefore, information provided in the abstract should be adequate. The CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) for Abstracts checklist has been developed and used as a guideline for authors to prepare their manuscripts. This checklist has also been used as a tool to evaluate published abstracts. The objective...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reporting quality of randomized and non-randomized controlled trial abstracts from chicken research

Sukon

Kongpechr

Bubpahou

et al. 2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 However, after the release of these guidelines, the reporting quality of RCT abstracts in leading medical and dental specialty journals remained suboptimal. [11][12][13][14][15][16] RCTs from "high-impact general medical journals" are considered to have high potential to influence clinical practice. 17 Similarly, with their high impact factors and wide readership, RCTs published in "high-impact" general dental journals are likely to affect dental practice to the same extent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts

Hua¹,

Deng²,

Kau³

et al. 2015

The Journal of the American Dental Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A similar study conducted by Montgomery et al (15) stated that during evaluation of abstracts, reviewers were in greater agreement in criteria that were related to design and methodology rather than subjective components. In case of participation of multiple reviewers in the evaluation process, taking the average of these scores is common practice (4,6,16). In this study, comparison of the quality of presentations was not determined as an end-point, and the average of two different scores were not taken into account.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of reporting quality of the 2010 and 2012 National Surgical Congress oral presentations by CONSORT, STROBE and Timmer criteria

Hasbahçeci

Başak

Uysal

2014

UCD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the abstracts of oral presentations that were accepted to the National Surgical Congress by CONSORT, STROBE and Timmer criteria and to recommend development of a national abstract assessment system. Material and Methods:Presentation scores were calculated for oral presentations that have been accepted to the 2010 and 2012 National Surgical Congresses and have been included in the digital congress abstract booklets by two independent reviewers who were blinded to information regarding both the author and the institution. The CONSORT and Timmer criteria were used for randomized controlled trials, and for observational studies the STROBE and Timmer criteria were used. The presentation score that was obtained by three different evaluation systems was accepted as the main variable. The score changes according to the two congresses, the influence of the reviewers on the presentation scores, and compatibility between the two reviewers were evaluated. Comparisons regarding study types and total presentation number were made by using the chi-square test, the compatibility between the total score of the presentations were made by the Mann-Whitney U test and the compatibility between the reviewers were evaluated by the Wilcoxon signed ranks test.Results: There was no difference between the two Congresses in terms of study type distribution and total number of accepted presentations (p=0.844). The total scores of randomized controlled trials and observational studies from the 2010 and 2012 National Surgical Congresses that were evaluated by two independent reviewers with different assessment tools did not show any significant difference (p>0.05). A significant difference was observed between the reviewers in their evaluation by CONSORT, STROBE and Timmer criteria (p<0.05).Conclusion: Implementation of standard criteria for the evaluation of abstracts that are sent to congresses is important in terms of presentation reporting quality. The existing criteria should be revised according to national factors, in order to reduce the significant differences between reviewers. It is believed that discussions on a new evaluation system will be beneficial in terms of the development of a national assessment system. Key Words: Congress, abstract, oral presentation, reporting quality INTRODUCTIONCongresses where scientific studies are shared as oral or poster presentations are important occasions. The majority of presentations are included only as abstracts in congress proceedings. Considering that less than 50% of congress presentations are published in the literature, it is obvious that the majority of presentations are not converted into publications (1, 2). Similarly, it was found that in Turkey the rate of publications in international journals out of the general surgery congress presentations between 1996-2004 was 5.7% (3). Therefore, congress abstracts are the only source available for a large portion of scientific studies (4, 5).A scientific study abstract should be sufficient and qualifie...

show abstract

Reporting Quality of Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Dental Specialty Journals

Cited by 44 publications

References 24 publications

Reporting quality of randomized and non-randomized controlled trial abstracts from chicken research

Reporting quality of randomized and non-randomized controlled trial abstracts from chicken research

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts

Evaluation of reporting quality of the 2010 and 2012 National Surgical Congress oral presentations by CONSORT, STROBE and Timmer criteria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About