The degree of adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines for the abstracts of randomised clinical trials published in anaesthesia journals

Chow, Jeffrey; Turkstra, Timothy P.; Yim, Edmund; Jones, Philip M.

doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000000880

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…22 The situation is particularly severe in specialty journals for disciplines such as anesthesiology, cardiology, psychiatry, and surgery. 5,[23][24][25] Adherence to guidelines is associated with the impact factors and is less satisfactory in lower-impact-factor journals than higher ones because high-impact-factor journals are, in general, more resourceful. 26 Therefore, we believe that CONSORT-NLP is timely and may help readers, publishers, and authors of RCTs in the biomedical research ecosystem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Tool to Generate the CONSORT Reporting Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for randomized clinical trials is associated with improvingquality because inadequate reporting in randomized clinical trials may complicate the interpretation and the application of findings to clinical care. OBJECTIVE To evaluate an automated reporting checklist generation tool that uses natural language processing (NLP), called CONSORT-NLP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This study used published journal articles as training, testing, and validation sets to develop, refine, and evaluate the CONSORT-NLP tool. Articles reporting randomized clinical trials were selected from 25 high-impact-factor journals under the following categories: (1) general and internal medicine, (2) oncology, and (3) cardiac and cardiovascular systems. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES For an evaluation of the performance of this tool, an accuracy metric defined as the number of correct assessments divided by all assessments was calculated. RESULTS The CONSORT-NLP tool uses the widely used Portable Document Format as an input file. Of the 37 CONSORT reporting items, 34 (92%) were included in the tool. Of these 34 reporting items, 30 were fully implemented; 28 (93%) of the fully implemented CONSORT reporting items had an accuracy of more than 90% for the validation set. The remaining 2 (7%) had an accuracy between 80% and 90% for the validation set. Two to 5 articles were selected from each of these journals for a total of 158 articles to establish a training set of 111 articles to train CONSORT-NLP for CONSORT reporting items, a testing set of 25 articles to refine CONSORT-NLP, and a validation set of 22 articles to assess the performance of CONSORT-NLP. The CONSORT-NLP tool used the Portable Document Format of the articles as input files. A CONSORT-NLP graphical user interface was built using Java in 2019. The time required to complete the CONSORT checklist manually vs using the CONSORT-NLP tool was compared for 30 articles. Two case studies for randomized clinical trials are provided as an illustration for the CONSORT-NLP tool. For the 30 articles investigated, CONSORT-NLP required a mean (SD) 23.0 (4.1) seconds, whereas the manual reviewer required a mean (SD) 11.9 (2.2), 22.6 (4.6), and 57.6 (7.1) minutes, for 3 reviewers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The CONSORT-NLP tool is designed to assist in the reporting of randomized clinical trials. Potential users of CONSORT-NLP include clinicians, researchers, and scientists who plan to publish a randomized trial study in a peer-reviewed journal. The use of CONSORT-NLP may help them save substantial time when generating the CONSORT checklist. This tool may also be useful for manuscript reviewers and journal editors who review these articles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Tool to Generate the CONSORT Reporting Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…20 Whether all authors and journals rigidly follow these guidelines is unclear. [21][22][23] Peer reviewers may be susceptible to numerous biases when assessing manuscripts, including: ad hominem bias (bias for or against a person based on personal jealousy, friendship, or sympathy for the author's situation); affiliation bias (bias related to the whether the author's institution is prestigious or not); and ideologic bias (bias for or against the author's position). 24 To address these biases, new peer-review strategies have attracted journals' interest, including double-blind peer review in which authors and their affiliations are concealed from reviewers, open peer review which reveals the full identities of authors and reviewers, and an 'independent' discussion section in which an independent expert who is not an author writes a second discussion.…”

Section: Misinformation and The News Mediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Combatting myths and misinformation about obstetric anesthesia

Butwick

Weiniger

2019

International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…With the publication of CONSORT extension for abstract reporting (CONSORT-A), it was endorsed by the World Association of Medical Editors, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and the Council of Science Editors (Chhapola et al, 2018). Studies have been conducted based on CONSORT-A to evaluate the quality of abstract reporting in different areas and certain specialties (Germini et al, 2019;Faggion & Giannakopoulos, 2012;Chow et al, 2018;Fang et al, 2020;Gallo et al, 2020). However, these studies indicated that the reporting quality of RCT abstracts are consistently suboptimal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Zhang

Ws²,

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The degree of adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines for the abstracts of randomised clinical trials published in anaesthesia journals

Cited by 18 publications

References 21 publications

Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Tool to Generate the CONSORT Reporting Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials

Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Tool to Generate the CONSORT Reporting Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials

Combatting myths and misinformation about obstetric anesthesia

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About