Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts on Aesthetic Use of Botulinum Toxin: How Much Do Abstracts Actually Tell Us?

IF 3.4 Q2 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Ante Sučić, A. Š. Perišin, Tomislav Žuvela, D. Leskur, D. Rušić, D. Modun, J. Bukić
{"title":"Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts on Aesthetic Use of Botulinum Toxin: How Much Do Abstracts Actually Tell Us?","authors":"Ante Sučić, A. Š. Perišin, Tomislav Žuvela, D. Leskur, D. Rušić, D. Modun, J. Bukić","doi":"10.3390/cosmetics10050119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Botulinum toxin use has become the most commonly performed aesthetic procedure among individuals of all age groups, encompassing both women and men. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence and quality reporting of their abstracts plays a significant role for health professionals, influencing their decision-making in patient management. Therefore, our study aimed to assess the reporting quality of published RCT abstracts for botulinum toxin aesthetic use in the head area. The CONSORT-A checklist with 17 items was used to assess the quality of reporting. All available RCT abstracts (N = 191) found by searching the Medline database that were published up until June 2023 were included in this study. The average reporting rate was 52.9%. General items were inadequately reported (30.9%), with few abstracts describing the trial design. The methods section was better reported (62.0%), with interventions, objectives, and outcomes properly reported in over 97.5% abstracts. The results section (56.9%) demonstrated good reporting of randomized participant numbers but limited reporting of primary outcomes and harms. None of the abstracts reported funding sources or randomization information. To enhance the transparency and reliability of RCT results, abstracts should adhere more rigorously to the CONSORT-A guidelines. Improved reporting in abstracts can facilitate evidence-based decision-making in everyday practice of medical professionals in the field of aesthetic medicine.","PeriodicalId":10735,"journal":{"name":"Cosmetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cosmetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics10050119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Botulinum toxin use has become the most commonly performed aesthetic procedure among individuals of all age groups, encompassing both women and men. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence and quality reporting of their abstracts plays a significant role for health professionals, influencing their decision-making in patient management. Therefore, our study aimed to assess the reporting quality of published RCT abstracts for botulinum toxin aesthetic use in the head area. The CONSORT-A checklist with 17 items was used to assess the quality of reporting. All available RCT abstracts (N = 191) found by searching the Medline database that were published up until June 2023 were included in this study. The average reporting rate was 52.9%. General items were inadequately reported (30.9%), with few abstracts describing the trial design. The methods section was better reported (62.0%), with interventions, objectives, and outcomes properly reported in over 97.5% abstracts. The results section (56.9%) demonstrated good reporting of randomized participant numbers but limited reporting of primary outcomes and harms. None of the abstracts reported funding sources or randomization information. To enhance the transparency and reliability of RCT results, abstracts should adhere more rigorously to the CONSORT-A guidelines. Improved reporting in abstracts can facilitate evidence-based decision-making in everyday practice of medical professionals in the field of aesthetic medicine.
肉毒杆菌毒素美容应用随机对照试验摘要的报告质量:摘要实际上告诉了我们多少?
肉毒杆菌毒素的使用已成为所有年龄组(包括女性和男性)中最常见的美容手术。随机对照试验(RCT)提供了最高水平的证据,其摘要的质量报告对卫生专业人员起着重要作用,影响他们在患者管理中的决策。因此,我们的研究旨在评估已发表的头部肉毒杆菌毒素美容使用的随机对照试验摘要的报告质量。CONSORT-A检查表包含17个项目,用于评估报告质量。截至2023年6月,通过搜索Medline数据库发现的所有可用的随机对照试验摘要(N=191)均包含在本研究中。平均报告率为52.9%。一般项目报告不足(30.9%),很少有摘要描述试验设计。方法部分得到了更好的报道(62.0%),超过97.5%的摘要中正确报道了干预措施、目标和结果。结果部分(56.9%)显示随机参与者人数报告良好,但主要结果和危害报告有限。没有任何摘要报告资金来源或随机化信息。为了提高随机对照试验结果的透明度和可靠性,摘要应更严格地遵守CONSORT-A指南。摘要报告的改进可以促进美容医学领域医学专业人员日常实践中的循证决策。
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
Cosmetics
Cosmetics Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
12.10%
发文量
108
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信