Assessing reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in psychiatry: Adherence to CONSORT for abstracts: A systematic review

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts is important as readers often make their first judgments based on the abstracts. This study aims to assess the reporting quality of psychiatry RCT abstracts published before and after the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2017-11, Vol.12 (11), p.e0187807-e0187807
Hauptverfasser: Song, Seung Yeon, Kim, Boyeon, Kim, Inhye, Kim, Sungeun, Kwon, Minjeong, Han, Changsu, Kim, Eunyoung
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts is important as readers often make their first judgments based on the abstracts. This study aims to assess the reporting quality of psychiatry RCT abstracts published before and after the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) guidelines. MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted to identify psychiatric RCTs published during 2005-2007 (pre-CONSORT) and 2012-2014 (post-CONSORT). Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts using a 18-point overall quality score (OQS) based on the CONSORT-A guidelines. Linear regression analysis was conducted to analyze factors associated with reporting quality. Among 1,927 relevant articles, 285 pre-CONSORT and 214 post-CONSORT psychiatric RCT abstracts were included for analysis. The mean OQS improved from 6.9 (range: 3-13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.7-7.2) to 8.2 (range: 4-16; 95% CI: 7.8-8.5) after the CONSORT-A guidelines. Despite improvement, methods of randomization, allocation concealment, and funding source remained to be insufficiently reported (
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0187807