{"title":"2015-2024年在欧洲正畸学会大会上发表的随机对照试验摘要的报告质量:随着时间的推移是否有改善?","authors":"Saumiya Paheerathan, Dihya Flitti, Martyn T Cobourne, Fang Hua, Nikolaos Pandis, Jadbinder Seehra","doi":"10.1093/ejo/cjaf039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Throughout a trial report, clear and accurate reporting is essential. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) Congress between 2015-2024. Associations between reporting quality and abstract characteristics were explored.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>All EOS Congress scientific abstracts published between 2015-2024 (2020 excluded) were included. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per CONSORT item and sum score were calculated. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and abstract characteristics was undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>139 RCT congress abstracts were analysed. The most frequent years of RCT abstract presentation were 2018 (14.4%) and 2023 (19.4%). RCT abstracts were more likely to be poster types (62.6%), with corresponding authors based in Europe (77.7%), single centre (64.7%) and reporting a non-significant result for the primary outcome (54.0%). The mean overall total quality reporting score was 17.6 (SD 5.6, min 15 and max 22.8) out of a maximum score of 50. Items that tended not to be reported include authors contact details, participant (settings), randomization procedures and trial registration. Posters achieved lower scores compared to oral abstracts (-2.96; 95% CI -4.86, -1.07; P < 0.01). Additionally, an abstract word count greater than 251 words was associated with higher total score (3.28; 95% CI 0.74, 5.82; P = 0.012). A weak association (0.29, 95% CI: -0.03-0.62, p = 0.07) between year of abstract publication and an improvement in overall reporting score over time was evident.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Only one society congress were assessed which may impact the generalisability of the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In relation to the CONSORT reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts checklist, RCT abstracts presented at EOS congress between 2015-2024 remain sub-optimal with reporting of key items lacking. However, reporting quality scores have shown an association with type of presentation (oral or poster), abstract word count and some evidence of improvement over time. Measures to encourage clear and consistent RCT abstract reporting are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":11989,"journal":{"name":"European journal of orthodontics","volume":"47 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society Congress between 2015-2024: has there been an improvement over time?\",\"authors\":\"Saumiya Paheerathan, Dihya Flitti, Martyn T Cobourne, Fang Hua, Nikolaos Pandis, Jadbinder Seehra\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ejo/cjaf039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Throughout a trial report, clear and accurate reporting is essential. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) Congress between 2015-2024. Associations between reporting quality and abstract characteristics were explored.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>All EOS Congress scientific abstracts published between 2015-2024 (2020 excluded) were included. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per CONSORT item and sum score were calculated. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and abstract characteristics was undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>139 RCT congress abstracts were analysed. The most frequent years of RCT abstract presentation were 2018 (14.4%) and 2023 (19.4%). RCT abstracts were more likely to be poster types (62.6%), with corresponding authors based in Europe (77.7%), single centre (64.7%) and reporting a non-significant result for the primary outcome (54.0%). The mean overall total quality reporting score was 17.6 (SD 5.6, min 15 and max 22.8) out of a maximum score of 50. Items that tended not to be reported include authors contact details, participant (settings), randomization procedures and trial registration. Posters achieved lower scores compared to oral abstracts (-2.96; 95% CI -4.86, -1.07; P < 0.01). Additionally, an abstract word count greater than 251 words was associated with higher total score (3.28; 95% CI 0.74, 5.82; P = 0.012). A weak association (0.29, 95% CI: -0.03-0.62, p = 0.07) between year of abstract publication and an improvement in overall reporting score over time was evident.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Only one society congress were assessed which may impact the generalisability of the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In relation to the CONSORT reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts checklist, RCT abstracts presented at EOS congress between 2015-2024 remain sub-optimal with reporting of key items lacking. However, reporting quality scores have shown an association with type of presentation (oral or poster), abstract word count and some evidence of improvement over time. Measures to encourage clear and consistent RCT abstract reporting are required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of orthodontics\",\"volume\":\"47 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaf039\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaf039","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在整个试验报告中,清晰准确的报告是必不可少的。本研究的目的是评估2015-2024年欧洲正畸学会(EOS)大会上提交的RCT摘要的报告质量。研究了报告质量与摘要特征之间的关系。材料和方法:纳入2015-2024年(不包括2020年)发表的所有EOS Congress科学摘要。计算描述性统计和频率分布。计算每个CONSORT项目充分报告的平均值和总得分。在探索性的基础上,对总结得分与抽象特征进行单变量线性回归。结果:分析了139篇RCT会议摘要。RCT摘要发表频率最高的年份是2018年(14.4%)和2023年(19.4%)。RCT摘要更有可能是海报类型(62.6%),通讯作者来自欧洲(77.7%),单中心(64.7%),报告的主要结局结果不显著(54.0%)。平均总体质量报告得分为17.6 (SD 5.6,最小15分,最大22.8分),最高得分为50分。往往不被报告的项目包括作者联系方式、参与者(设置)、随机化程序和试验注册。与口头摘要相比,海报的得分较低(-2.96;95% ci -4.86, -1.07;P局限性:仅评估了一次学会大会,这可能会影响结果的普遍性。结论:关于CONSORT报告的期刊和会议摘要清单中的随机对照试验,2015-2024年期间在EOS大会上提交的RCT摘要仍然不够理想,缺少关键项目的报告。然而,报告质量分数与陈述类型(口头或海报)、抽象字数和随着时间的推移而改善的一些证据有关。需要采取措施鼓励清晰一致的随机对照试验摘要报告。
Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society Congress between 2015-2024: has there been an improvement over time?
Background: Throughout a trial report, clear and accurate reporting is essential. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) Congress between 2015-2024. Associations between reporting quality and abstract characteristics were explored.
Material and methods: All EOS Congress scientific abstracts published between 2015-2024 (2020 excluded) were included. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per CONSORT item and sum score were calculated. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and abstract characteristics was undertaken.
Results: 139 RCT congress abstracts were analysed. The most frequent years of RCT abstract presentation were 2018 (14.4%) and 2023 (19.4%). RCT abstracts were more likely to be poster types (62.6%), with corresponding authors based in Europe (77.7%), single centre (64.7%) and reporting a non-significant result for the primary outcome (54.0%). The mean overall total quality reporting score was 17.6 (SD 5.6, min 15 and max 22.8) out of a maximum score of 50. Items that tended not to be reported include authors contact details, participant (settings), randomization procedures and trial registration. Posters achieved lower scores compared to oral abstracts (-2.96; 95% CI -4.86, -1.07; P < 0.01). Additionally, an abstract word count greater than 251 words was associated with higher total score (3.28; 95% CI 0.74, 5.82; P = 0.012). A weak association (0.29, 95% CI: -0.03-0.62, p = 0.07) between year of abstract publication and an improvement in overall reporting score over time was evident.
Limitations: Only one society congress were assessed which may impact the generalisability of the results.
Conclusions: In relation to the CONSORT reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts checklist, RCT abstracts presented at EOS congress between 2015-2024 remain sub-optimal with reporting of key items lacking. However, reporting quality scores have shown an association with type of presentation (oral or poster), abstract word count and some evidence of improvement over time. Measures to encourage clear and consistent RCT abstract reporting are required.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Orthodontics publishes papers of excellence on all aspects of orthodontics including craniofacial development and growth. The emphasis of the journal is on full research papers. Succinct and carefully prepared papers are favoured in terms of impact as well as readability.