Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals.

<h4>Background</h4>Clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized trials (RCTs), published in journal articles are important because readers will often base their initial assessment of a trial on such information. However, little is known about the quality of report...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Yaolong Chen, Jing Li, Changlin Ai, Yurong Duan, Ling Wang, Mingming Zhang, Sally Hopewell
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2010
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/995b9f354fbd4c7d9d713eeb80f352e3
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:995b9f354fbd4c7d9d713eeb80f352e3
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:995b9f354fbd4c7d9d713eeb80f352e32021-11-18T06:36:28ZAssessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0011926https://doaj.org/article/995b9f354fbd4c7d9d713eeb80f352e32010-08-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20689853/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>Clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized trials (RCTs), published in journal articles are important because readers will often base their initial assessment of a trial on such information. However, little is known about the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in medical journals in China.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified RCTs abstracts from 5 five leading Chinese medical journals published between 1998 and 2007 and indexed in MEDLINE. We assessed the quality of reporting of these abstracts based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) abstract checklist. We also sought to identify whether any differences exist in reporting between the Chinese and English language version of the same abstract.<h4>Results</h4>We identified 332 RCT abstracts eligible for examination. Overall, the abstracts we examined reported 0-8 items as designated in the CONSORT checklist. On average, three items were reported per abstract. Details of the interventions (288/332; 87%), the number of participants randomized (216/332; 65%) and study objectives (109/332; 33%) were the top three items reported. Only two RCT abstracts reported details of trial registration, no abstracts reported the method of allocation concealment and only one mentioned specifically who was blinded. In terms of the proportion of RCT abstracts fulfilling a criterion, the absolute difference (percentage points) between the Chinese and English abstracts was 10% (ranging from 0 to 25%) on average, per item.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in Chinese medical journals needs to be improved. We hope that the introduction and endorsement of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines by journals reporting RCTs will lead to improvements in the quality of reporting.Yaolong ChenJing LiChanglin AiYurong DuanLing WangMingming ZhangSally HopewellPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 5, Iss 8, p e11926 (2010)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Yaolong Chen Jing Li Changlin Ai Yurong Duan Ling Wang Mingming Zhang Sally Hopewell Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals.
description	<h4>Background</h4>Clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized trials (RCTs), published in journal articles are important because readers will often base their initial assessment of a trial on such information. However, little is known about the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in medical journals in China.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified RCTs abstracts from 5 five leading Chinese medical journals published between 1998 and 2007 and indexed in MEDLINE. We assessed the quality of reporting of these abstracts based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) abstract checklist. We also sought to identify whether any differences exist in reporting between the Chinese and English language version of the same abstract.<h4>Results</h4>We identified 332 RCT abstracts eligible for examination. Overall, the abstracts we examined reported 0-8 items as designated in the CONSORT checklist. On average, three items were reported per abstract. Details of the interventions (288/332; 87%), the number of participants randomized (216/332; 65%) and study objectives (109/332; 33%) were the top three items reported. Only two RCT abstracts reported details of trial registration, no abstracts reported the method of allocation concealment and only one mentioned specifically who was blinded. In terms of the proportion of RCT abstracts fulfilling a criterion, the absolute difference (percentage points) between the Chinese and English abstracts was 10% (ranging from 0 to 25%) on average, per item.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in Chinese medical journals needs to be improved. We hope that the introduction and endorsement of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines by journals reporting RCTs will lead to improvements in the quality of reporting.
format	article
author	Yaolong Chen Jing Li Changlin Ai Yurong Duan Ling Wang Mingming Zhang Sally Hopewell
author_facet	Yaolong Chen Jing Li Changlin Ai Yurong Duan Ling Wang Mingming Zhang Sally Hopewell
author_sort	Yaolong Chen
title	Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals.
title_short	Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals.
title_full	Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals.
title_fullStr	Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals.
title_full_unstemmed	Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals.
title_sort	assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading chinese medical journals.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2010
url	https://doaj.org/article/995b9f354fbd4c7d9d713eeb80f352e3
work_keys_str_mv	AT yaolongchen assessmentofthequalityofreportinginabstractsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedinfiveleadingchinesemedicaljournals AT jingli assessmentofthequalityofreportinginabstractsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedinfiveleadingchinesemedicaljournals AT changlinai assessmentofthequalityofreportinginabstractsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedinfiveleadingchinesemedicaljournals AT yurongduan assessmentofthequalityofreportinginabstractsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedinfiveleadingchinesemedicaljournals AT lingwang assessmentofthequalityofreportinginabstractsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedinfiveleadingchinesemedicaljournals AT mingmingzhang assessmentofthequalityofreportinginabstractsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedinfiveleadingchinesemedicaljournals AT sallyhopewell assessmentofthequalityofreportinginabstractsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedinfiveleadingchinesemedicaljournals
_version_	1718424431439642624

Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals.

Ejemplares similares