Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals
Open Access
- 7 June 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Trials
- Vol. 13 (1), 77
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-77
Abstract
Background: The extended Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for Abstracts was developed to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on the To date, few data exist regarding whether it has achieved this goal. We evaluated the extent of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract statement for quality of reports on RCT abstracts by four high-impact general medical journals.Methods: A descriptive analysis of published RCT abstracts in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in the year 2010 was conducted by two reviewers, independently extracting data from a MEDLINE/PubMed search.Results: We identified 271 potential RCT abstracts meeting our inclusion criteria. More than half of the abstracts identified the study as randomized in the title (58.7%; 159/271), reported the specific objective/hypothesis (72.7%; 197/271), described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection (60.9%; 165/271), detailed the interventions for both groups (90.8%; 246/271), and clearly defined the primary outcome (94.8%; 257/271). However, the methodological quality domains were inadequately reported: allocation concealment (11.8%; 32/271) and details of blinding (21.0%; 57/271). Reporting the primary outcome results for each group was done in 84.1% (228/271). Almost all of the abstracts reported trial registration (99.3%; 269/271), whereas reports of funding and of harm or side effects from the interventions were found in only 47.6% (129/271) and 42.8% (116/271) of the abstracts, respectively.Conclusions: These findings show inconsistencies and non-adherence to the CONSORT for abstract guidelines, especially in the methodological quality domains. Improvements in the quality of RCT reports can be expected by adhering to existing standards and guidelines as expressed by the CONSORT group.This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Quality of reporting of trial abstracts needs to be improved: using the CONSORT for abstracts to assess the four leading Chinese medical journals of traditional Chinese medicineTrials, 2010
- Intention‐to‐treat in randomized controlled trials: Recommendations for a total trial strategyResearch in Nursing & Health, 2010
- Calculation of NNTs in RCTs with time-to-event outcomes: A literature reviewBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2009
- Chinese authors do need CONSORT: Reporting quality assessment for five leading Chinese medical journalsContemporary Clinical Trials, 2008
- An assessment of the quality of randomised controlled trials conducted in ChinaTrials, 2008
- CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and ElaborationPLoS Medicine, 2008
- Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstractsJournal of Information Science, 2007
- The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statementContemporary Clinical Trials, 2005