Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Periodontal Diseases in Journal Abstracts-A Cross-sectional Survey and Bibliometric Analysis

Development, validation, and usage of metrics to evaluate the quality of clinical research hypotheses

OBJECTIVES

Metrics and instruments can provide guidance for clinical researchers to assess their potential research projects at an early stage before significant investment. Furthermore, metrics can also provide structured criteria for peer reviewers to assess others' clinical research manuscripts or grant proposals. This study aimed to develop, test, validate, and use evaluation metrics and instruments to accurately, consistently, systematically, and conveniently assess the quality of scientific hypotheses for clinical research projects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Metrics development went through iterative stages, including literature review, metrics and instrument development, internal and external testing and validation, and continuous revisions in each stage based on feedback. Furthermore, two experiments were conducted to determine brief and comprehensive versions of the instrument.

RESULTS

The brief version of the instrument contained three dimensions: validity, significance, and feasibility. The comprehensive version of metrics included novelty, clinical relevance, potential benefits and risks, ethicality, testability, clarity, interestingness, and the three dimensions of the brief version. Each evaluation dimension included 2 to 5 subitems to evaluate the specific aspects of each dimension. For example, validity included clinical validity and scientific validity. The brief and comprehensive versions of the instruments included 12 and 39 subitems, respectively. Each subitem used a 5-point Likert scale.

CONCLUSION

The validated brief and comprehensive versions of metrics can provide standardized, consistent, systematic, and generic measurements for clinical research hypotheses, allow clinical researchers to prioritize their research ideas systematically, objectively, and consistently, and can be used as a tool for quality assessment during the peer review process.

Quality of Abstracts Reporting in Periodontal Randomized Controlled Trials: A Descriptive Analysis

The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts greatly impacts the way readers perceive interventional outcomes, influencing their scientific applicability. Recent data about the quality of periodontal RCT abstracts that have been published is lacking. Thus, the aim of this study is to assess the reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs published in periodontal journals in recent years. The study is descriptive and cross-sectional, surveying the abstracts of RCTs published in the Journal of Periodontology (JOP), Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JOCP), and Journal of Periodontal Research (JOPR) between 2018 and 2022. The assessment of reporting quality was performed employing the CONSORT criteria for abstracts of RCTs. The quantitative values for each item on the CONSORT checklist for all published RCT abstracts were derived by descriptive statistical techniques, including univariate analysis. Comparisons were drawn between the journals and the different variables included in the study. The investigation identified 176 RCTs (11.7%) out of a total of 1506 articles published in these three journals over a period of four years. The primary observation of this research is that the mean quality scores were a mere 52.36 ± 9.9 for all the published periodontal RCTs abstracts. JOCP obtained the highest quality scores (54.7 ± 10.5), followed by JOPR (52.4 ± 9.9) and JOP (49.1 ± 7.9). RCT abstracts from Europe had higher reporting quality, whereas those from Africa were the lowest. The trials carried out in mixed settings showed better quality in the reporting of abstracts compared to those conducted in university, private, or governmental settings. RCTs with more than six authors and statisticians involved showed higher quality scores. These results are not indicative of a substantial improvement when compared to previous years (2015-2018). Abstracts of RCTs reported are below par in the preeminent periodontology journals. There has been no discernible progress over the years, notably in terms of blinding, the randomization description, and the disclosure of potential harms.

Harnack H, Huang L, Sikorski C, Mbuagbaw L, de Souza RJ. Assessment of reporting quality of randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of inulin-type fructans supplementation on cardiovascular disease risk factors: A systematic survey

BACKGROUND

Transparent and detailed reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is essential to judge its validity and generalizability. We assessed the reporting quality of RCTs examining the effects of inulin-type fructans supplementation on cardiovascular risk factors, before and after the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) in 2010.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Emcare, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from inception to May 15, 2022, including the reference lists of selected RCTs. We screened titles and abstracts and extracted the data independently and in duplicate. We included RCTs that investigated the effects of inulin-type fructans on cardiovascular disease risk factors (e.g., low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting blood glucose) in adults (18 years or older). The primary outcomes of this study were: the overall reporting quality of RCTs (defined as the total number of items [0 to 36] present from the CONSORT checklist) published before and after CONSORT; and the study characteristics (e.g., sample size, significance of primary outcome) predictive of the CONSORT score. The secondary outcome was the reporting of each specific item of the CONSORT checklist during pre- and post-CONSORT periods. The mean difference in the total number of reported items in studies published before and after CONSORT were compared using a t-test and Poisson regression to explore the factors associated with overall reporting quality of RCTs. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the adherence to each of the 36 items during pre- and post-CONSORT periods.

RESULTS

We identified 1,767 citations from our systematic search, of which 55 were eligible. There was a significant increase in the reporting of CONSORT items (mean difference 8.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.24 to 11.71) between studies published before and after publication of CONSORT. The sole variable that was predictive of better reporting quality of RCTs was whether the study was published before or after CONSORT (incidence rate ratio 1.67, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.02). Completeness of reporting of RCTs only improved in 15 out of 36 items (41.6%) after the publication of CONSORT.

CONCLUSION

The completeness of reporting in RCTs investigating inulin-type fructans supplementation on cardiovascular disease risk factors remains inadequate after the publication of CONSORT. Greater adherence to CONSORT by authors and enforcement of CONSORT by journals may improve the quality of reporting among RCTs.

Quality of Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Three of the Most Citable Periodontal Journals from 2018 to 2022

This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in periodontology. Three leading periodontology journals, the Journal of Periodontology (JOP), the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JOCP), and the Journal of Periodontal Research (JOPR), were selected for this investigation. The RCTs were identified by manually searching for human trial articles published in these three journals. Two authors independently conducted the literature search, and a pre-piloted extraction sheet was used to screen the potential RCTs. The CONSORT checklist guidelines were employed to calculate the score value. Intra-examiner reliability was assessed by scoring a random sample of 10% of the papers in a second round conducted by the first examiner three months after the initial data collection. A search of abstracts published over a five-year period yielded 176 articles that reported RCTs, accounting for 11.7% of all articles published in the three journals. The highest number of RCTs was published in 2020, and more than half of the included RCTs (51%) originated from Europe. Many of the analyzed RCTs inadequately reported almost half of the items on the CONSORT checklist. Furthermore, univariate analysis revealed significant associations between certain factors and the overall CONSORT score, such as publication in JOP (p = 0.048), publication year of 2019 (p = 0.041) and 2021 (p = 0.042), first author from North America (p = 0.016), and RCTs with more than six authors (p = 0.042). Clinical trial research in periodontics has made significant progress in the past five years. However, there is room for improvement in adhering to the CONSORT guidelines.

Reporting Quality of the Abstracts for Randomized Controlled Trials in Pediatric Dentistry

OBJECTIVES

 The purpose of this study is to systematically appraise the reporting quality of abstracts for randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in pediatric dentistry using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts and to analyze the relationship between the characteristics of the RCT to the quality of abstracts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 RCTs published in Pediatric Dentistry were retrieved from the PubMed database from 2016 to 2021. The quality of abstracts was appraised using CONSORT for abstracts checklist by two independent reviewers.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

 In descriptive statistics, frequency and percentage analysis were used for categorical variables, whereas mean and standard deviation were used for continuous variables. To find the significant difference between the bivariate samples in independent groups, Mann-Whitney U test was employed. Multivariate analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U tests. Probability value of p-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

 Two hundred abstracts were included in the study. All the abstracts adequately reported the "objective" item, whereas only 2 and 4% of abstracts adequately addressed "randomization" and "harms" items, respectively. A significant relationship was observed between the continent of first author/corresponding author, number of authors, impact factor, adherence to CONSORT guidelines, word count, focus of study, and a priori protocol registration to the quality of abstracts (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

 The abstracts of the RCT included in the study did not adequately follow the CONSORT for abstract guidelines. Adherence to the reporting guidelines would improve the overall reporting quality of abstracts of RCT published in Pediatric Dentistry. The overall mean score of the abstracts was 6.80 out of 15 indicating that the abstracts did not adequately follow the CONSORT for abstract reporting guidelines.

Time to Publication for Randomized Clinical Trials Presented as Abstracts at Three Gastroenterology and Hepatology Conferences in 2017

Background & Aims

Results of randomized clinical trials are often first presented as conference abstracts, but these abstracts may be difficult to find, and trial results included in the abstract may not be followed by subsequent journal publications. In a review of abstracts submitted to eight major medical and surgical conferences in 2017, we identified 237 abstracts reporting primary results of randomized clinical trials accepted for presentation at three major gastroenterology and hepatology conferences. The aims of this new analysis were to determine the publication rate for these abstracts and the proportion of publications that included trial registration numbers in the publication abstract.

Methods

Clinical trial registries, PubMed, Europe PMC, and Google Scholar were searched through November 1, 2021, for publications reporting trial results for the selected abstracts. Publications were reviewed to determine if they included a trial registration number and if the registration number was in the abstract.

Results

Publications were found for 157 abstracts (66%) within four years of the conference. Publications were found more frequently for the 194 abstracts reporting results of registered trials (144, 74%) than for the 43 abstracts reporting unregistered trials (13, 30%), but only 67% of these 144 publications included the registration number in the publication abstract. Ten unpublished trials had summary results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions

Clinical trial results could be more accessible if all trials were registered, authors included registration numbers in both conference and journal abstracts, and journal editors required the inclusion of registration numbers in publication abstracts for registered clinical trials.

THE REPORTING QUALITY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ABSTRACTS IN LEADING GENERAL DENTAL JOURNALS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts published in leading general dental journals according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) guidelines, and to identify factors associated with overall reporting quality.

METHODS

We identified SR abstracts published in 10 leading general dental journals and assessed their reporting quality. For each abstract, an overall reporting score (ORS, range: 0-13) was calculated. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated to compare the reporting quality of abstracts in Pre-PRISMA (2011-2012) and Post-PRISMA (2017-2018) periods. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality.

RESULTS

A total of 104 eligible abstracts were included. The mean ORS was 5.59 (SD = 1.48) and 6.97 (1.74) respectively in the Pre- and Post-PRISMA abstracts, with statistically significant difference (mean difference = 1.38; 95% CI: 0.70, 2.05). Reporting of the exact P-value (B = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.99) was a significant predictor of higher reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of SR abstracts published in leading general dental journals improved after the release of PRISMA-A guidelines, but is still suboptimal. Relevant stakeholders need to work together to enhance the reporting quality of SR abstracts in dentistry.

Research trends and hotspots of breast cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic: A bibliometric analysis

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is disrupting routine medical care of cancer patients, including those who have cancer or are undergoing cancer screening. In this study, breast cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic (BCMP) is reviewed, and the research trends of BCMP are evaluated by quantitative and qualitative evaluation.

Methods

In this study, published studies relating to BCMP from 1 January 2020 to 1 April 2022 were searched from the Web of Science database (WoS). Bibliometric indicators consisted of publications, research hotspots, keywords, authors, journals, institutions, nations, and h-index.

Results

A total of 182 articles investigating BCMP were searched. The United States of America and the University of Rome Tor Vergata were the nation and the institution with the most publications on BCMP. The first three periodicals with leading published BCMP studies were Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Breast, and In Vivo. Buonomo OC was the most prolific author in this field, publishing nine articles (9/182, 4.94%). The co-keywords analysis of BCMP suggests that the top hotspots and trends in research are screening, surgery, rehabilitation, emotion, diagnosis, treatment, and vaccine management of breast cancer during the pandemic. The hotspot words were divided into six clusters, namely, screening for breast cancer patients in the pandemic, breast cancer surgery in the pandemic, recovery of breast cancer patients in the pandemic, motion effect of the outbreak on breast cancer patients, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer patients in the pandemic, and vaccination management for breast cancer patients during a pandemic.

Conclusion

BCMP has received attention from scholars in many nations over the last 3 years. This study revealed significant contributions to BCMP research by nations, institutions, scholars, and journals. The stratified clustering study provided the current status and future trends of BCMP to help physicians with the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer through the pandemic, and provide a reference for in-depth clinical studies on BCMP.

Reporting quality for abstracts of randomised trials on child and adolescent depression prevention: a meta-epidemiological study on adherence to CONSORT for abstracts

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts in reports of randomised trials on child and adolescent depression prevention. Secondary objective was to examine factors associated with overall reporting quality.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and CENTRAL.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Trials were eligible if the sample consisted of children and adolescents under 18 years with or without an increased risk for depression or subthreshold depression. We included reports published from 1 January 2003 to 8 August 2020 on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster randomised trials (CRTs) assessing universal, selective and indicated interventions aiming to prevent the onset of depression or reducing depressive symptoms.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

As the primary outcome measure, we assessed for each trial abstract whether information recommended by CONSORT was adequately reported, inadequately reported or not reported. Moreover, we calculated a summative score of overall reporting quality and analysed associations with trial and journal characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 169 eligible studies, 103 (61%) RCTs and 66 (39%) CRTs. Adequate reporting varied considerably across CONSORT items: while 9 out of 10 abstracts adequately reported the study objective, no abstract adequately provided information on blinding. Important adverse events or side effects were only adequately reported in one out of 169 abstracts. Summative scores for the abstracts' overall reporting quality ranged from 17% to 83%, with a median of 40%. Scores were associated with the number of authors, abstract word count, journal impact factor, year of publication and abstract structure.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting quality for abstracts of trials on child and adolescent depression prevention is suboptimal. To help health professionals make informed judgements, efforts for improving adherence to reporting guidelines for abstracts are needed.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials related to implant dentistry

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of scientific articles should be accurate and detailed in summarizing the information in the full-text because they are the first article section the reader examines. This study assessed the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts related to implant dentistry and examined associations between reporting quality and study characteristics.

METHODS

On the 17th of January 2021, we searched the PubMed database for abstracts of RCTs published in high-ranked periodontology and implant dentistry journals from 2016 to 2021. For each abstract, we assessed if the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist items were reported completely, partially, or not reported. An Overall CONSORT Score (OCS) and relative score (OCS%) were calculated as a proxy to checklist adherance. Linear regression models were fitted to analyze associations between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting.

RESULTS

Four-hundred and thirty four of the 678 retrieved abstracts were eligible for inclusion. The mean OCS and OCS% were 6,23 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.56) or 41.5% (SD = 10.4), respectively. Items most frequently reported included the title (n = 434; 100%), intended intervention (n = 425; 98%) and conclusions (n = 430; 99%). Participant allocation, blinding, and trial registration were rarely completely reported with frequencies of 2%, 3% and 4%, respectively. We found that number of authors, continent, type of RCT, number of centers, report of ethical approval, funding, structure and length of the abstract were associated with better abstract reporting.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal. Journals should start to incorporate and endorse the use of the CONSORT-A guidelines in their instructions to authors to enhance reporting quality. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A multiyear systematic survey of the quality of reporting for randomised trials in dentistry, neurology and geriatrics published in journals of Spain and Latin America

BACKGROUND

The Iberoamerican Cochrane Network is currently developing an extensive project to identify Spanish-language journals that publish original clinical research in Spain and Latin America. The project is called BADERI (Database of Iberoamerican Essays and Journal) and feeds the research articles, mainly randomised clinical trials (RCTs), into CENTRAL (Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials). This study aims to assess the quality of reporting of RCTs published in Spanish and Latin American journals for three clinical fields and assess changes over time.

METHODS

We did a systematic survey with time trend analysis of RCTs for dentistry, geriatrics, and neurology. These fields were chosen for pragmatic reasons as they had not yet been completed in BADERI. After screening RCTs from 1990 to 2018 for randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials, we extracted data for 23 CONSORT items. The primary outcome was the total score of the 23 predefined CONSORT 2010 items for each RCT (score range from 0 to 34). The secondary outcome measure was the score for each one of these 23 items.

RESULTS

A total of 392 articles from 1990 to 2018 were included as follows: dentistry (282), neurology (80), and geriatrics (30). We found that the overall compliance score for the CONSORT items included in this study for all 392 RCTs analysed was 12.6 on a scale with a maximum score of 34. With time, the quality of reporting improved slightly for all RCTs. None of the articles achieved the complete individual CONSORT item compliance score. The lowest overall compliance percentage was for item 10 (Randomisation implementation) and item 24 (Protocol registration), with a dismal 1% compliance across all included RCTs, regardless of country.

CONCLUSIONS

CONSORT compliance is very poor in the 392 analysed RCTs. The impact of the CONSORT statement on improving the completeness of RCT reporting in Latin America and Spain is not clear. Iberoamerican journals should become more involved in endorsing and enforcing adherence to the CONSORT guidelines.

Abstracts for reports of randomised trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting quality of abstracts for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the use of spin strategies and the level of spin for RCTs with statistically non-significant primary outcomes, and to explore potential predictors for reporting quality and the severity of spin.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed was searched to find RCTs that tested interventions for COVID-19, and the reporting quality and spin in the abstracts were assessed. Linear regression analyses were used to identify potential predictors.

RESULTS

Forty RCT abstracts were included in our assessment of reporting quality, and a higher word count in the abstract was significantly correlated with higher reporting scores (95% CI 0.044 to 0.658, P=0.026). Multiple spin strategies were identified. Our multivariate analyses showed that geographical origin was associated with severity of spin, with research from non-Asian regions containing fewer spin strategies (95% CI -0.760 to -0.099, P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs of interventions for COVID-19 is far from satisfactory. A relatively high proportion of the abstracts contained spin, and the findings reported in the results and conclusion sections of these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.

Do not make clinical decisions based on abstracts of healthcare research: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the reporting quality of healthcare abstracts and inconsistencies between abstracts and full texts.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This systematic review included overviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) that summarized data of healthcare abstracts on reporting of abstracts and consistency of abstracts with the full text. Searches were performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases from 1900 to February 2019. Two authors screened the overviews and extracted the data. All analyses were descriptive and divided into two main groups: abstracts' reporting quality and abstracts' consistency with the full text. Abstracts were considered poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text if more than 5% of abstracts' information was not fully reported or not consistent with the full text.

RESULTS

27 overviews analyzing 5,194 RCTs and 866 SRs were retrieved for reporting quality of abstracts. A total of 22 overviews analyzing 2,025 RCTs and 551 SRs were included for consistency of abstracts with the full text. Abstracts across all healthcare areas presented poor reporting quality and were inconsistent with the full texts, with results and conclusions as the most inconsistent sections.

CONCLUSION

Abstracts of healthcare RCTs and SRs have shown a large room for improvement in reporting quality and consistency with the full text. Authors, journal editors and reviewers need to give the highest priority to this matter.

COMPLIANCE OF RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS ON DENTAL CARIES PREVENTION METHODS WITH THE CONSORT STATEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

OBJECTIVE

Reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry remains suboptimal. Considering the positive impact of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines on the quality of evidence in RCTs, the main objective of this systematic review was to determine whether RCTs on dental caries prevention conform to these guidelines. The secondary objective was to assess the association between CONSORT adherence and the year and impact factor of the journal in which the study was published.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in different databases using appropriate terms to retrieve RCTs that assessed the caries-preventive effect of at least 2 of the following materials-fluoride varnish, resin-based fissure sealants, and ionomer-based fissure sealants-on the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars. Since the first CONSORT statement was published in 1996, a time frame from 1997 to 2020 was established for the identification of studies. Selected articles were assessed according to their adherence to the CONSORT statement, risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias tool, RoB 2.0), and journal impact factor based on the InCites Journal Citation Reports. The year of publication and other relevant data were also recorded. SPSS (SPSS Statistics 25.0, IBM©) was used to perform the linear correlation analyses to determine the relationship between the article CONSORT score (previously determined) and the year of publication and journal impact factor. A significance level of 5% was established for all analyses.

RESULTS

Of 3196 references retrieved, 30 articles were selected and evaluated. Using RoB 2.0, 8 studies were classified as having a high risk of bias, 16 as having some concerns about the risk of bias assessment, and 6 as having a low risk of bias. Concerning CONSORT adherence, 77% of the studies adequately reported the intervention domain, since the methodology for the application of fluoride varnish or sealant materials was thoroughly described. However, the participants' setting and location, random sequence generation, randomization, and the flowchart description of the losses/exclusions domains were poorly reported. Meanwhile, the allocation concealment process was not reported in 83% of the articles. Correlation analyses indicated a positive relationship between CONSORT adherence and the year of publication, as well as the journal impact factor.

CONCLUSION

When assessing clinical trials on the prevention of occlusal caries, most RCTs examined followed the CONSORT statement. However, some methodological domains remain poorly reported, demonstrating the need to improve CONSORT compliance in these RCTs.

Are published randomized clinical trials abstracts on periodontics reported adequately?

Introduction

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) remain the golden standard in biomedical research, which makes their reporting to a high quality essential to control RCTs’ internal validity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of abstract reporting of RCTs published in periodontic journals and their compliance with the CONSORT guidelines.

Methods

A hand search was undertaken to identify RCTs published in three periodontic journals [1] Journal of periodontology (JOP) [2], the Journal of periodontal research (JOPR) and [3] the Journal of clinical periodontology (JOCP) from 2015 to 2018.The completeness of abstract reporting was evaluated with a modified CONSORT for abstracts statement checklist.

Results

Abstracts of 177 randomized controlled trials were identified and assessed. The distribution of published reports was in the Journal of periodontology (JOP), (42%) the Journal of periodontal research (JOPR) (7%) and the Journal of clinical periodontology (JOCP) (51%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 49.0%(95% CI: 47.7–50.2%). Most of the abstracts (91–100%) clearly reported and described the study design as randomized in the RCTs' title and recruitment status, as well as study interventions, objective(s), outcome(s) and conclusions. There was insufficient description and reporting of the authors’ contact details, trial design, method of randomization, blinding, number of analyzed participants per group, harms, trial registration and source of funding.

Conclusions

The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in periodontic journals is suboptimal. In view of the current guidelines of reporting RCTs abstracts, efforts should be made to better reporting.

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence and are likely to influence clinical decision-making. This study evaluated the reporting quality of RCT abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease and assessed the associated factors.

Material and Methods

The Pubmed database was searched for periodontal RCTs published in Science Citation Indexed (SCI) dental journals from 2010/01/01 to 2019/07/17. Information was extracted from the abstracts according to a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline checklist. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis and the statistical associations were examined using the linear regression analysis (P <0.05).

Results

This study retrieved 1715 articles and 249 of them were finally included. The average overall CONSORT score was 15.6 ± 3.4, which represented 40.9% (±0.6) of CONSORT criteria filling. The reporting rate of some items (trial design, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis or per-protocol analysis, harms, registration) was less than 30%. The adequate reporting rate of some items (participants, randomization, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis or per protocol analysis) was no more than 4%. None of the abstracts reported funding. According to the multivariable linear regression results, number of authors (P=0.030), word count (P <0.001), continent (P=0.003), structured format (P <0.001), type of periodontal disease (P <0.001) and international collaboration (P=0.023) have a significant association with reporting quality.

Conclusions

The quality of RCT abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease in SCI dental journals remained suboptimal. More efforts should be made to improve RCT abstracts reporting quality.

Key words:Abstracts, RCT, drug therapy, periodontal disease, CONSORT, reporting quality assessment.

Spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in periodontology and oral implantology: A cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the presence and characteristics of spin (a distorted interpretation to make research findings seem favorable) in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and oral implantology, and to explore its associated factors and influence on the subsequent literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was searched to identify recent RCTs in periodontology and oral implantology, whose primary outcome was non-significant. Spin in abstracts was assessed and categorized according to pre-determined spin strategies. The associations between study characteristics and the presence / severity of spin were analyzed using multivariable logistic regressions.

RESULTS

196 abstracts were included, 137 (69.9%) of which had spin. 57 (29.1%) abstracts had spin in the Results Section, 126 (64.3%) had spin in the Conclusion Section. The main spin strategies in the Results and Conclusion Sections were focusing on secondary outcomes (16.3%) and focusing on within-group comparisons (28.6%), respectively. The presence of spin was associated with number of centers (OR=0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.73; p=0.009) while its severity was associated with topic (OR=0.24, 95% CI: 0.08-0.70; p=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of spin is relatively high among published RCT abstracts in periodontology and oral implantology. Findings reported in these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.

Quality of reporting for randomised clinical trials published in Latin American and Spanish journals: A protocol for a systematic survey of three clinical specialities

INTRODUCTION

Quality of reporting refers to how published articles communicate how the research was done and what was found. Gaps and imprecisions of reporting hamper the assessment of the methodological quality and internal and external validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) are a set of evidence-based recommendations of the minimum elements to be included in the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure a complete and transparent account of what was done, how it was done and what was found. Few studies have been conducted on the impact of CONSORT on RCTs published in Latin American and Spanish journals. We aim to assess the reporting quality of RCTs of three clinical specialities published in Spanish and Latin American journals, as well as to assess changes over time and associations of quality with journal and country indicators.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic survey of all RCTs published in Spanish-language journals in three clinical fields (dentistry, neurology and geriatrics) from 1990 to 2018. We will include RCTs from previous work that has identified all RCTs on these medical fields published in Spain and Latin America. We will update this work via handsearching of relevant journals. Assessment of quality of reporting will be conducted independently and in duplicate using the CONSORT 2010 Statement. We will also extract journal and country indicators. We will conduct descriptive statistics and secondary analyses considering the year, country, and journal of publication, among others.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Universidad de Santiago de Chile's ethics committee approved the protocol. We will disseminate the results of this work in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference proceedings. We expect to raise awareness among researchers, journal editors and funders on the importance of training in reporting guidelines and using them from the inception of RCT protocols.

Abstracts of published randomised controlled trials in Endodontics: Reporting quality and spin

AIMS

To assess the reporting quality of recently published randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in Endodontics, to investigate factors associated with reporting quality, and to evaluate the existence and characteristics of spin. Spin refers to reporting strategies that distort study results and misguide readers.

METHODOLOGY

The PubMed database was searched to identify abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics published during 2017 to 2018. Two authors assessed the reporting quality of each included abstract using the original 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist, with the overall quality score (OQS, range: 0 to 16) being the primary outcome measure. For each individual item, a score of '1' was given if it was described adequately, and '0' if the description was inadequate. Linear regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with reporting quality. For the evaluation of spin, two authors selected parallel-group RCTs with a nonsignificant primary outcome from the included abstracts, and evaluated independently the existence and characteristics of spin among these abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 162 abstracts were included for assessment of reporting, for which the mean OQS was 3.97 (SD, 1.30; 95 % CI, 3.77 to 4.17). According to multivariable analysis, origin from Europe (P=0.001) and reporting of the exact P value (P=0.020) were significantly associated with better reporting. Forty abstracts with statistically nonsignificant results for their primary outcome were included for spin evaluation, among which 34 (85.0%) had at least one type of spin. Thirty-two abstracts (94.1%) had spin in their conclusions section, and six abstracts (17.6%) had spin in the results section.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in Endodontics needs to be improved. The occurrence rate of spin in the sample of abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics was high. Relevant stakeholders are recommended to be familiar with the CONSORT for Abstracts guideline and develop active strategies to ensure its implementation.

Spin in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dentistry: A cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Spin in randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts can misguide clinicians. In this cross-sectional analysis, the authors assessed the prevalence of spin in RCT abstracts and explored the factors potentially influencing it.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional analysis, the authors conducted a systematic search in top 10 dental journals based on Eigenfactor score and selected RCTs published in 2015 with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes. The dentistry disciplines covered in these journals include general dentistry, dental research, oral implantology, endodontics, oral surgery, periodontology, and oral oncology. In these RCT abstracts, the authors assessed the prevalence of 3 different categories of spin and factors that could influence its presence using the t test and χ2 test.

RESULTS

Spin assessment performed in the included 75 RCTs revealed the existence of spin in 23 abstracts (30.7%). Associations between the presence of spin in abstracts and the variables international collaborations, commercial support type, number of treatment arms, and journal impact factor were found to be statistically nonsignificant (P ≥ .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of the 75 RCT abstracts published in high-impact dental journals in 2015 with nonsignificant outcomes presented with some form of spin, irrespective of funding type and journal impact factor.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should be aware of the potential existence of spin in abstracts and be diligent in reading and appraising the full trial before incorporating its recommendations in clinical practice.

Is the trend to publish reviews and clinical trials related to the journal impact factor? Analysis in dentistry field

It is generally accepted that the Journal Impact Factor is a quality criterion. The objective was to determine the evolution along the period 2010-2016 of number of different types of papers, reviews and clinical trials, published by dental journals, as well as if they are related with the quartile occupied in the Journal Impact Factor 2017 ranking. To this end, ten journals per quartile belonging to the field Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine in the 2017 Journal Citation Reports were randomly selected. For each journal and year, the total number of narrative reviews, systematic reviews (with and without meta-analysis), meta-analysis, clinical trials and randomized controlled trials were obtained from Pubmed. To achieve our goal, the slope of these variables over time was estimated using the least squares method, after which one-way analysis of variance of mean values was performed. In Dentistry, the journals of the top quartiles show a trend to publish increasing amounts of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, than the ones of the third and fourth quartile. On the other hand, globally, there was virtually no increase in narrative reviews, clinical trials and randomized controlled trial. Possible causes of this behavior are also discussed in this article.