Quality of reporting in abstracts of clinical trials using physical activity interventions: a cross-sectional analysis using the CONSORT for Abstracts

Q3 Medicine

International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare Pub Date : 2023-10-09 DOI:10.17267/2675-021xevidence.2023.e5173

Angélica Trevisan De Nardi, Leony Morgana Galliano, Nórton Luís Oliveira, Daniel Umpierre

{"title":"Quality of reporting in abstracts of clinical trials using physical activity interventions: a cross-sectional analysis using the CONSORT for Abstracts","authors":"Angélica Trevisan De Nardi, Leony Morgana Galliano, Nórton Luís Oliveira, Daniel Umpierre","doi":"10.17267/2675-021xevidence.2023.e5173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: The quality of reporting in the abstract section of scientific articles is one of the important aspects of good communication of trials. OBJECTIVES: We investigated abstracts of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the physical activity field according to adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts (primary outcome) and checked the recommendations of the selected journals regarding the contents and structure of the abstract. METHODS: This study is a descriptive, cross-sectional study of the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences (SEES) Initiative. RCTs published in 9 exercise science journals and 2 general medicine journals during 2019 were eligible. Two researchers conducted study selection and, thereafter, assessment of the abstracts using a form comprising 16 items based on CONSORT for Abstracts. Also, extracted, in duplicate and independently, the journals’ recommendations for authors. RESULTS: 131 abstracts were eligible for evaluation. From items evaluated, those with the highest adherence were objectives or hypothesis (99%), conclusion (98%), and intervention (94%). The lowest reporting was observed in the number of participants analyzed (6%), allocation and randomization (1%), and funding (1%). Ten journals recommended the abstract structure, but only two mentioned the CONSORT for Abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: There is variable and suboptimal adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts in trials in the physical activity field and poor recommendation of this instrument in journals selected. Therefore, we suggest editors, reviewers, and authors a greater adherence to guidelines, and to journal recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of abstracts in the physical activity field.","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":"116 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17267/2675-021xevidence.2023.e5173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The quality of reporting in the abstract section of scientific articles is one of the important aspects of good communication of trials. OBJECTIVES: We investigated abstracts of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the physical activity field according to adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts (primary outcome) and checked the recommendations of the selected journals regarding the contents and structure of the abstract. METHODS: This study is a descriptive, cross-sectional study of the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences (SEES) Initiative. RCTs published in 9 exercise science journals and 2 general medicine journals during 2019 were eligible. Two researchers conducted study selection and, thereafter, assessment of the abstracts using a form comprising 16 items based on CONSORT for Abstracts. Also, extracted, in duplicate and independently, the journals’ recommendations for authors. RESULTS: 131 abstracts were eligible for evaluation. From items evaluated, those with the highest adherence were objectives or hypothesis (99%), conclusion (98%), and intervention (94%). The lowest reporting was observed in the number of participants analyzed (6%), allocation and randomization (1%), and funding (1%). Ten journals recommended the abstract structure, but only two mentioned the CONSORT for Abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: There is variable and suboptimal adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts in trials in the physical activity field and poor recommendation of this instrument in journals selected. Therefore, we suggest editors, reviewers, and authors a greater adherence to guidelines, and to journal recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of abstracts in the physical activity field.

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用身体活动干预的临床试验摘要的报告质量:使用CONSORT对摘要进行横断面分析

背景:科学论文摘要部分的报道质量是试验良好传播的重要方面之一。目的:我们根据摘要综合报告试验标准(CONSORT)(主要结局)调查了体育活动领域的随机临床试验(rct)的摘要，并检查了所选期刊关于摘要内容和结构的推荐。方法:本研究是一项关于加强运动科学证据(SEES)倡议的描述性横断面研究。2019年在9种运动科学期刊和2种普通医学期刊上发表的随机对照试验符合条件。两名研究人员进行了研究选择，然后使用包含16个项目的基于CONSORT的摘要评估表对摘要进行评估。此外，还摘录了两份独立的期刊对作者的推荐。结果:131篇摘要符合评价标准。从评估项目来看，坚持度最高的是目标或假设(99%)、结论(98%)和干预(94%)。报告最低的是分析的参与者数量(6%)、分配和随机化(1%)和资助(1%)。10种期刊推荐了摘要结构，但只有2种期刊提到了CONSORT for Abstracts。结论:在体育活动领域的试验中，对CONSORT摘要的依从性存在变数和次优性，所选期刊对该工具的推荐度较差。因此，我们建议编辑、审稿人和作者更严格地遵守指南和期刊建议，以提高体育活动领域摘要报告的质量。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare Medicine-Health Policy

CiteScore

1.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare is the official journal of the Joanna Briggs Institute. It is a fully refereed journal that publishes manuscripts relating to evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice. It publishes papers containing reliable evidence to assist health professionals in their evaluation and decision-making, and to inform health professionals, students and researchers of outcomes, debates and developments in evidence-based medicine and healthcare. The journal provides a unique home for publication of systematic reviews (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence) and implementation projects including the synthesis, transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice. Original scholarly work relating to the synthesis (translation science), transfer (distribution) and utilization (implementation science and evaluation) of evidence to inform multidisciplinary healthcare practice is considered for publication. The journal also publishes original scholarly commentary pieces relating to the generation and synthesis of evidence for practice and quality improvement, the use and evaluation of evidence in practice, and the process of conducting systematic reviews (methodology) which covers quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence methods. In addition, the journal’s content includes implementation projects including the transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice as well as providing a forum for the debate of issues surrounding evidence-based healthcare.