Departments of Urology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
J Urol. 2010 Jul;184(1):249-53. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.045. Epub 2010 May 16.
We assessed the quality of randomized, controlled trial reporting in abstracts from the annual meetings of the American Urological Association and determined whether the information provided is consistent with subsequent full text publications.
All randomized, controlled trials presented in abstract form at the 2002 and 2003 American Urological Association annual meetings were identified for review. A systematic PubMed search based on authorship and key words from the study title was done to identify all subsequent full text publications. A standardized evaluation form was developed based on the published literature, pilot tested in a separate sample and applied by 2 independent reviewers.
A total of 126 randomized, controlled trials were identified for review, including 56 in 2002 and 70 in 2003. Approximately a third of the trials (43 or 34.1%) identified the study design as a randomized, controlled trial in the abstract title. The method of randomization, allocation concealment and blinding was reported in 0% (0), 0% (0) and 40.5% (51) of studies, respectively. Mean/median followup was provided in 27.0% of studies (34). Of 126 randomized, controlled trials presented in abstract form 62.7% (79) were subsequently published as full text articles. Study sample size and the number of randomized subjects differed in 24.1% and 28.9% of abstracts, respectively. From the small proportion of randomized, controlled trials (23 or 29.1%) that identified a single primary end point results differed in 9 of 23 (39.1%).
Most abstracts fail to provide the necessary information to assess methodological quality. Organizers of urological meetings should consider implementing a more structured abstract format that requires authors to provide the necessary study details, thereby allowing urologists to critically appraise study validity.
我们评估了美国泌尿协会年会摘要中随机对照试验报告的质量，并确定所提供的信息是否与随后的全文出版物一致。
对 2002 年和 2003 年美国泌尿协会年会上以摘要形式呈现的所有随机对照试验进行了回顾性评估。根据作者和研究标题中的关键词进行了系统的 PubMed 搜索，以确定所有后续的全文出版物。根据已发表的文献制定了标准化的评估表格，在另一个样本中进行了试点测试，并由 2 名独立审查员使用。
共评估了 126 项随机对照试验，其中 2002 年 56 项，2003 年 70 项。大约三分之一的试验（43 项或 34.1%）在摘要标题中明确指出研究设计为随机对照试验。随机化方法、分配隐匿和盲法分别在 0%（0）、0%（0）和 40.5%（51）的研究中报告，中位随访时间在 27.0%的研究中（34）。在以摘要形式呈现的 126 项随机对照试验中，62.7%（79）随后发表为全文文章。研究样本量和随机化受试者数量在 24.1%和 28.9%的摘要中分别存在差异。在确定单一主要终点的随机对照试验中，只有 23 项（29.1%）的试验比例较小，其中 9 项（39.1%）的结果不同。
大多数摘要未能提供评估方法学质量所需的信息。泌尿科会议的组织者应考虑实施更具结构化的摘要格式，要求作者提供必要的研究细节，从而使泌尿科医生能够批判性地评估研究的有效性。
