Quality of reporting in abstracts of clinical trials using physical activity interventions: a cross-sectional analysis using the CONSORT for Abstracts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17267/2675-021Xevidence.2023.e5173Keywords:
Quality of Reporting, CONSORT for Abstracts, Clinical TrialAbstract
BACKGROUND: The quality of reporting in the abstract section of scientific articles is one of the important aspects of good communication of trials. OBJECTIVES: We investigated abstracts of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the physical activity field according to adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts (primary outcome) and checked the recommendations of the selected journals regarding the contents and structure of the abstract. METHODS: This study is a descriptive, cross-sectional study of the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences (SEES) Initiative. RCTs published in 9 exercise science journals and 2 general medicine journals during 2019 were eligible. Two researchers conducted study selection and, thereafter, assessment of the abstracts using a form comprising 16 items based on CONSORT for Abstracts. Also, extracted, in duplicate and independently, the journals’ recommendations for authors. RESULTS: 131 abstracts were eligible for evaluation. From items evaluated, those with the highest adherence were objectives or hypothesis (99%), conclusion (98%), and intervention (94%). The lowest reporting was observed in the number of participants analyzed (6%), allocation and randomization (1%), and funding (1%). Ten journals recommended the abstract structure, but only two mentioned the CONSORT for Abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: There is variable and suboptimal adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts in trials in the physical activity field and poor recommendation of this instrument in journals selected. Therefore, we suggest editors, reviewers, and authors a greater adherence to guidelines, and to journal recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of abstracts in the physical activity field.
Downloads
References
(1) Saint S, Christakis DA, Saha S, Elmore JG, Welsh DE, Baker P, et al. Journal reading habits of internists. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(12):881-4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.00202.x
(2) Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2008;5(1):e20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020
(3) Ghimire S, Kyung E, Kang W, Kim E. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials. 2012;13:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-77
(4) Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869
(5) Hays M, Andrews M, Wilson R, Callender D, O’Malley PG, Douglas K. Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6(7):e011082. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011082
(6) Berwanger O, Ribeiro RA, Finkelsztejn A, Watanabe M, Suzumura EA, Duncan BB, et al. The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(4):387-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.05.013
(7) Can OS, Yilmaz AA, Hasdogan M, Alkaya F, Turhan SC, Can MF, et al. Has the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract reporting? A survey of four high-profile anesthesia journals. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28(7):485-92. https://doi.org/10.1097/eja.0b013e32833fb96f
(8) Faggion Jr CM, Giannakopoulos NN. Quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading journals of periodontology and implant dentistry: a survey. J Periodontol. 2012;83(10):1251-6. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2012.110609
(9) Mbuagbaw L, Thabane M, Vanniyasingam T, Debono VB, Kosa S, Zhang S, et al. Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: A systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;38(2):245-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2014.05.012
(10) Chhapola V, Tiwari S, Brar R, Kanwal SK. Reporting quality of trial abstracts-improved yet suboptimal: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid-Based Med. 2018;11(2):89-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12294
(11) Shamseer L, Hopewell S, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF. Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal “Instructions to Authors” in 2014. Trials. 2016;17(1):301. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1408-z
(12) Pedersen BK, Saltin B. Exercise as medicine - evidence for prescribing exercise as therapy in 26 different chronic diseases. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25:1-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12581
(13) Wilkinson TJ, Shur NF, Smith AC. “Exercise as medicine” in chronic kidney disease. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016;26(8):985-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12714
(14) Robinson KA, Dickersin K. Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):150-3. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.1.150
(15) Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100(2):126-31. Cited: PMID: 3920711.
(16) Khan MS, Shaikh A, Ochani RK, Akhtar T, Fatima K, Khan SU, et al. Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12(5):e005260. https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.118.005260
(17) Speich B, Mc Cord KA, Agarwal A, Gloy V, Gryaznov D, Moffa G, et al. Reporting Quality of Journal Abstracts for Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials Before and After the Implementation of the CONSORT Extension for Abstracts. World J Surg. 2019;43(10):2371-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05064-1
(18) Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e4178. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4178
(19) Dickersin K, Manheimer E, Wieland S, Robinson KA, Lefebvre C, Mcdonald S. Development of the COCHRANE Collaboration’s CENTRAL register of controlled clinical trials. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):38-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/016327870202500104
(20) Lewis SC, Warlow CP. How to spot bias and other potential problems in randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004;75(2):181-7. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2003.025833
(21) Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058-64. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.651
(22) Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, du Sert NP, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1(1):0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Angélica Trevisan De Nardi, Leony Morgana Galliano, Nórton Luís Oliveira, Daniel Umpierre
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors retain copyrights, transferring to the Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare only the right of first publication. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
