Reporting Quality for Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials in Cancer Nursing Research

Background: Abstracts are often used to screen a journal article. Little is known about the reporting quality for abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cancer nursing. Objective: This study evaluated the quality of abstracts reporting published RCTs in cancer nursing and examined factors contributing to better reporting quality. Methods: This is a literature review study. Searches were conducted in PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for English-language RCTs involving cancer nursing. Quality of abstract reporting was assessed and scored based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial statement for Abstracts (CONSORT for Abstracts). Descriptive statistics, univariate, and multivariate analyses were used to identify predictors of better quality of abstracts. Results: A total of 227 eligible articles published between 1984 and 2010 from 68 journals were identified. On average 46% of the items in the CONSORT for Abstracts were reported. More than 80% of the studies addressed only 6 of the 17 items from the CONSORT for Abstracts. Items concerning randomization, blinding, and intent-to-treat analysis were reported by fewer than 30% of the studies. Publication year, word count, impact factor, number of institutes, corresponding author's country, and funding accounted for 31.6% to 33.2% of the variance of the quality of abstracts based on a multiple regression model. Conclusions: The reporting quality score of cancer nursing RCT abstracts was suboptimal. Implications for Practice: Strategies to improve abstract reporting quality are needed. To ensure that essential RCT information can be reported in the abstract, journal editors may need to reassess word count limits.