Compliance of abstracts of randomized control trials with CONSORT guidelines: A case study of Balkan journals

Q2 Social Sciences
N. Sut, Z. Koçak, Selçuk Korkmaz, C. Uzun
{"title":"Compliance of abstracts of randomized control trials with CONSORT guidelines: A case study of Balkan journals","authors":"N. Sut, Z. Koçak, Selçuk Korkmaz, C. Uzun","doi":"10.3897/ese.2022.e71240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not compliant with the CONSORT checklist as much as they should.\n Objective: To assess the quality, in terms of the level to which they are compliant with the CONSORT checklist, of abstracts of RCTs published in general medical journals in the Balkan region.\n Methods: Two observers assessed the abstracts of RCTs published in five general medical journals of the Balkan region between 2012 and 2018 to determine the level to which the abstracts were compliant with the 16-item CONSORT abstracts checklist.\n Results: Of the 183 studies that were identified for evaluation, 124 (67.8%) were excluded from the evaluation. The average compliance level was 44.5% (95%   CI: 41.9%–47.1%), the lowest being that for randomization (1.7%), funding (1.7%),\n numbers analysed (11.0%), blinding (13.6%), and trial registration (18.6%). However, the compliance level was very high for conclusions (99.2%), objectives (96.6%), interventions (95.8%), and primary outcomes (83.9%). The length of the abstract (word count) and the level of compliance were positively correlated (rs = 0.43; p = 0.001). Abstracts of trials published in journals that endorse CONSORT in their publication policies were more compliant than those published in other journals (47.5 ± 10.4 versus 40.8 ± 8.0, p = 0.024).\n Conclusion: The overall level of compliance with the CONSORT checklist was below 50%. To improve the quality of abstracts of RCTs, authors should be encouraged to use the CONSORT checklist, and editors should check compliance with the CONSORT guidelines as part the publishing workflow.","PeriodicalId":35360,"journal":{"name":"European Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Science Editing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e71240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not compliant with the CONSORT checklist as much as they should. Objective: To assess the quality, in terms of the level to which they are compliant with the CONSORT checklist, of abstracts of RCTs published in general medical journals in the Balkan region. Methods: Two observers assessed the abstracts of RCTs published in five general medical journals of the Balkan region between 2012 and 2018 to determine the level to which the abstracts were compliant with the 16-item CONSORT abstracts checklist. Results: Of the 183 studies that were identified for evaluation, 124 (67.8%) were excluded from the evaluation. The average compliance level was 44.5% (95%   CI: 41.9%–47.1%), the lowest being that for randomization (1.7%), funding (1.7%), numbers analysed (11.0%), blinding (13.6%), and trial registration (18.6%). However, the compliance level was very high for conclusions (99.2%), objectives (96.6%), interventions (95.8%), and primary outcomes (83.9%). The length of the abstract (word count) and the level of compliance were positively correlated (rs = 0.43; p = 0.001). Abstracts of trials published in journals that endorse CONSORT in their publication policies were more compliant than those published in other journals (47.5 ± 10.4 versus 40.8 ± 8.0, p = 0.024). Conclusion: The overall level of compliance with the CONSORT checklist was below 50%. To improve the quality of abstracts of RCTs, authors should be encouraged to use the CONSORT checklist, and editors should check compliance with the CONSORT guidelines as part the publishing workflow.
随机对照试验摘要与CONSORT指南的一致性:巴尔干期刊的个案研究
背景:已发表的随机对照试验(RCTs)报告并不符合CONSORT清单。目的:评估巴尔干地区普通医学期刊上发表的随机对照试验摘要符合CONSORT核对表的质量。方法:两名观察员评估了2012年至2018年在巴尔干地区五种普通医学期刊上发表的随机对照试验摘要,以确定摘要符合16项CONSORT摘要清单的水平。结果:在183项纳入评估的研究中,124项(67.8%)被排除在评估之外。平均依从性水平为44.5% (95% CI: 41.9%-47.1%),最低的是随机化(1.7%)、资助(1.7%)、数据分析(11.0%)、盲法(13.6%)和试验注册(18.6%)。然而,结论(99.2%)、目标(96.6%)、干预措施(95.8%)和主要结局(83.9%)的依从性水平非常高。摘要长度(字数)与依从性呈正相关(rs = 0.43;P = 0.001)。发表在支持CONSORT发表政策的期刊上的试验摘要比发表在其他期刊上的试验摘要更具依从性(47.5±10.4比40.8±8.0,p = 0.024)。结论:患者对CONSORT检查表的总体依从性低于50%。为了提高随机对照试验摘要的质量,应鼓励作者使用CONSORT检查表,编辑应检查是否符合CONSORT指南,并将其作为出版工作流程的一部分。
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
European Science Editing
European Science Editing Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: EASE"s journal, European Science Editing , publishes articles, reports meetings, announces new developments and forthcoming events, reviews books, software and online resources, and highlights publications of interest to members.
×
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