You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Medical publishing and peer review
Protocol
Reporting quality of abstracts of trials published in top five pain journals: a protocol for a systematic survey
  1. Kamath Sriganesh1,2,
  2. Suparna Bharadwaj3,
  3. Mei Wang4,
  4. Luciana P F Abbade5,
  5. Rachel Couban6,
  6. Lawrence Mbuagbaw4,7,
  7. Lehana Thabane4,7,8,9,10
  1. 1Department of Neuroanaesthesia, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
  2. 2Department of Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Consultant Neuroanesthesiologist, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
  4. 4Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  5. 5Department of Dermatology and Radiotherapy, Botucatu Medical School, Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil
  6. 6Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  7. 7Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  8. 8Departments of Paediatrics and Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  9. 9Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  10. 10Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lehana Thabane; thabanl{at}mcmaster.ca

Abstract

Introduction Abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often the first and the only source read in a journal by busy healthcare providers. This necessitates good reporting of abstracts. The quality of reporting of abstracts, though gradually improving over time, is still not uniform across medical journals. Improvement in completeness of reporting of abstracts has been documented in general medical journals after the publication of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) extension for abstracts in 2008. Currently, this aspect has not been assessed with regards to pain journals. This study aims to compare the completeness of reporting of abstracts before and after the publication of CONSORT statement for abstracts in five pain journals.

Methods and analyses The abstracts of RCTs published from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2007 (pre-CONSORT) and from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015 (post-CONSORT) will be assessed for the quality of reporting. Studies without abstracts, non-English abstracts, abstracts not reporting on RCTs or on humans and conference abstracts will be excluded. A thorough search of MEDLINE will be carried out in April 2016. All identified studies will be screened for inclusion based on titles and abstracts. Data will be extracted by two sets of independent reviewers for each abstract in duplicate regarding compliance with CONSORT statement for abstracts. Full-text review will be performed to obtain additional characteristics which are likely to affect reporting quality. The unadjusted and adjusted differences in the mean number of items reported will be analysed using a two sample t-test and generalised estimation equation in SPSS.

Ethics and dissemination As far as we know, this is the first study to evaluate reporting quality of abstracts of pain journals based on CONSORT extension for abstracts. The findings of this study will be disseminated by a presentation at a conference and through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Ethics committee approval was not sought for this survey.

  • PAIN MANAGEMENT
  • QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012319

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors LT was responsible for the conception of the review. RC was involved in the search strategy. SK and LT were involved in the designing of the review. SK, SB, LPFA and MW were involved in designing and testing of the data extraction form. SK was involved in writing the initial draft, SB, MW and LPFA contributed to improvements in the manuscript and LM and LT critically revised the final draft. All authors contributed to the protocol and approved the final manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.