You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 6, Issue 7
  • Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Medical publishing and peer review
Research
Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
  1. Meredith Hays1,2,
  2. Mary Andrews1,2,
  3. Ramey Wilson1,2,
  4. David Callender2,
  5. Patrick G O'Malley1,2,
  6. Kevin Douglas1,2
  1. 1Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  2. 2Department of Internal Medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Meredith Hays; mhays24{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to assess adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts by five high-impact general medical journals and to assess whether the quality of reporting was homogeneous across these journals.

Design This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study.

Setting Randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in five high-impact general medical journals.

Participants We used up to 100 RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2014 from each of the following journals: The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals IM), The Lancet, the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Main outcome The primary outcome was per cent overall adherence to the 19-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Secondary outcomes included per cent adherence in checklist subcategories and assessing homogeneity of reporting quality across the individual journals.

Results Search results yielded 466 abstracts, 3 of which were later excluded as they were not RCTs. Analysis was performed on 463 abstracts (97 from NEJM, 66 from Annals IM, 100 from The Lancet, 100 from The BMJ, 100 from JAMA). Analysis of all scored items showed an overall adherence of 67% (95% CI 66% to 68%) to the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The Lancet had the highest overall adherence rate (78%; 95% CI 76% to 80%), whereas NEJM had the lowest (55%; 95% CI 53% to 57%). Adherence rates to 8 of the checklist items differed by >25% between journals.

Conclusions Among the five highest impact general medical journals, there is variable and incomplete adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist of randomised trials, with substantial differences between individual journals. Lack of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist by high-impact medical journals impedes critical appraisal of important studies. We recommend diligent assessment of adherence to reporting guidelines by authors, reviewers and editors to promote transparency and unbiased reporting of abstracts.

  • randomized controlled trials
  • CONSORT for Abstracts
  • compliance
  • guideline*
  • quality of report*

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-2016-011082

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