Premium
Does the CONSORT checklist for abstracts improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials on clinical pathways?
Author(s) -
Cui Qi,
Tian Jinhui,
Song Xuping,
Yang Kehu
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/jep.12200
Subject(s) - consolidated standards of reporting trials , checklist , medicine , randomized controlled trial , clinical trial , impact factor , quality score , statistical significance , family medicine , psychology , cognitive psychology , political science , law , metric (unit) , operations management , economics
Rationale aims and objectives The extension of the C onsolidated S tandards of R eporting T rials ( CONSORT ) statement provides reporting guidelines to improve the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials ( RCTs ). This present study was aim to assess the reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs on clinical pathway. Methods Eight databases were searched from inception to N ovember 2012 to identify RCTs . We extracted basic information and CONSORT items from abstracts. Each abstract was assessed independently by two reviewers. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 13.0. Level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results 328 abstracts were included. 300 (91.5%) were published in C hinese, of which 292 were published on high impact factor journals. 28 E nglish abstracts were all published on S cience C itation I ndex ( SCI ) journals. (1) Intervention, objective and outcome were almost fully reported in all abstracts, while recruitment and funding were never reported. (2) There are nine items ( P < 0.05) in C hinese that were of low quality compared with in E nglish. There was statistically difference on total score between C hinese and E nglish abstracts ( P < 0.00001). (3) There was no difference in any items between high and low impact factor journal in C hina. (4) In SCI journals, there were significant changes in reporting for three items trial design ( P = 0.026), harms ( P = 0.039) and trial registration ( P = 0.019) in different periods (pre‐ and post‐ CONSORT ), but only the numbers of randomized ( P = 0.003) changed in C hinese abstracts. Conclusions The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs on clinical pathway still should be improved. After the publication of CONSORT for abstracts guideline, the RCT abstracts reporting quality were improvement to some extent. The abstracts in C hinese journals showed non‐adherence to the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines.