Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study

被引:16
|
作者
Hua, Fang [1 ,2 ]
Sun, Qiao [3 ]
Zhao, Tingting [3 ]
Chen, Xiong [4 ]
He, Hong [3 ]
机构
[1] Wuhan Univ, Sch & Hosp Stomatol, Ctr Evidence Based Stomatol, Hubei MOST KLOS & KLOBM, Wuhan, Hubei, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Manchester, Div Dent, Cochrane Oral Hlth, Manchester, Lancs, England
[3] Wuhan Univ, Sch & Hosp Stomatol, Dept Orthodont, Hubei MOST KLOS & KLOBM, Wuhan, Hubei, Peoples R China
[4] Wuhan Univ, Zhongnan Hosp, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Wuhan, Hubei, Peoples R China
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2019年 / 9卷 / 07期
基金
中国博士后科学基金;
关键词
CONSORT EXTENSION; LEADING JOURNALS; WORLD CONGRESS; IMPROVEMENT; BIAS;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029270
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives To evaluate the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at a leading international conference in sleep medicine (the SLEEP Annual Meeting), and to investigate the association between potential predictors and the reporting quality of trial abstracts in this field. Design Cross-sectional, research on research study. Methods A handsearch of the 2016-2018 SLEEP Annual Meeting abstract books was carried out to identify abstracts describing RCTs. Quality of reporting was assessed with the original 17-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of reporting quality. In addition, risk ratios were used to analyse the adequate reporting rate of each quality item by type of intervention and funding status. Primary and secondary outcome measures The overall quality score (OQS, range 0-17) in accordance with the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (primary outcome), and the adequate reporting rate of each checklist item (secondary outcome). Results A total of 176 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OQS was 5.53 (95% CI 5.30 to 5.76). Only three quality items (objective, conclusions and funding) were adequately reported in most abstracts (> 75%). None of the abstracts adequately reported authors, randomisation or outcome in the results section. According to the multivariable analysis, pharmacological interventions (p=0.018) and funding from the industry (p=0.025) were significantly associated with better reporting quality. Conclusions The reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at SLEEP Annual Meetings was suboptimal. Pharmacological intervention and funding from industry were significant predictors of better reporting quality. Joint efforts by authors and conference committees are needed to enhance the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at sleep medicine conferences, and thereby reduce relevant research waste in this field.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study
    Gattrell, William T.
    Hopewell, Sally
    Young, Kate
    Farrow, Paul
    White, Richard
    Wager, Elizabeth
    Winchester, Christopher C.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2016, 6 (02):
  • [2] Reporting quality of conference abstracts on randomised controlled trials in gerontology and geriatrics: a cross-sectional investigation
    Mann, Eva
    Meyer, Gabriele
    [J]. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAET IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2011, 105 (06): : 459 - 462
  • [3] Structure formates of randomised controlled trial abstracts: a cross-sectional analysis of their current usage and association with methodology reporting
    Hua, Fang
    Walsh, Tanya
    Glenny, Anne-Marie
    Worthington, Helen
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2018, 18
  • [4] Structure formats of randomised controlled trial abstracts: a cross-sectional analysis of their current usage and association with methodology reporting
    Fang Hua
    Tanya Walsh
    Anne-Marie Glenny
    Helen Worthington
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18
  • [5] Reporting Quality and Information Consistency of Randomized, Controlled Trials Presented as Abstracts at the American Urological Association Annual Meetings
    Turpen, Ryan M.
    Fesperman, Susan F.
    Smith, William A.
    Vieweg, Johannes
    Dahm, Philipp
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 184 (01): : 249 - 253
  • [6] Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts on age-related macular degeneration health care: a cross-sectional quantification of the adherence to CONSORT abstract reporting recommendations
    Baulig, Christine
    Krummenauer, Frank
    Geis, Berit
    Tulka, Sabrina
    Knippschild, Stephanie
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2018, 8 (05):
  • [7] PUBLICATION OF PRESENTED ABSTRACTS AT ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS - A MEASURE OF QUALITY
    GORMAN, RL
    ODERDA, GM
    [J]. VETERINARY AND HUMAN TOXICOLOGY, 1990, 32 (05) : 470 - 472
  • [8] Reporting characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trial protocols in traditional Chinese medicine: a cross-sectional study
    Zhang, Lin
    Li, Han
    Hu, Lihan
    Ou, Xiangqin
    Tan, Hanzhi
    Zhang, Xuanqi
    Lau, Chung Tai
    Lyu, Aiping
    Bian, Zhaoxiang
    Zhang, Xuan
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY, 2024, 15
  • [9] Endorsement of the CONSORT guidelines, trial registration, and the quality of reporting randomised controlled trials in leading nursing journals: A cross-sectional analysis
    Jull, Andrew
    Aye, Phyu Sin
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2015, 52 (06) : 1071 - 1079
  • [10] Analysis of conference abstracts of prosthodontic randomised-controlled trials presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015): a cross-sectional study of the relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication
    Chen, Junsheng
    Cao, Yubin
    Wang, Meijie
    Gan, Xueqi
    Li, Chunjie
    Yu, Haiyang
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (02):