Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
J Periodontol. 2012 Oct;83(10):1251-6. doi: 10.1902/jop.2012.110609. Epub 2012 Feb 14.
Most readers, reviewers, and editors rely on abstracts to decide whether to assess the full text of an article. A research abstract should, therefore, be as informative as possible. The standard of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and implant dentistry has not yet been assessed. The objectives of this review are: 1) to assess the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs in periodontology and implant dentistry, and 2) to investigate changes in the quality of reporting by comparing samples from different periods.
The authors searched the PubMed electronic database, independently and in duplicate, for abstracts of RCTs published in seven leading journals of periodontology and implant dentistry from 2005 to 2007 and from 2009 to 2011. The quality of reporting in selected abstracts with reference to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for Abstracts checklist published in January 2008 was assessed independently and in duplicate. Cohen κ statistic was used to determine the extent of agreement of the reviewers. Pearson χ(2) test and/or Fisher exact test were used to assess differences in reporting in the two samples. Level of significance was set at P <0.05.
Three hundred ninety-two abstracts are included in this review. Three items (intervention, objective, and conclusions) were almost fully reported in both samples. In contrast, other items (randomization, trial registration, and funding) were never reported. There were significant changes in reporting for only two items, trial design and title (items better reported in the pre- and post-CONSORT samples, respectively). Most topics, however, were similarly poorly reported in both samples of abstracts.
The quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs in periodontology and implant dentistry can be improved. Authors should follow the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines, and journal editors should promote clear rules to improve authors' adherence to these guidelines.
大多数读者、审稿人和编辑都是根据摘要来决定是否评估文章全文。因此，研究摘要应尽可能提供丰富的信息。牙周病学和种植学领域随机对照试验（RCT）摘要的报告标准尚未得到评估。本研究的目的是：1）评估牙周病学和种植学领域 RCT 摘要的报告质量，2）通过比较不同时期的样本，研究报告质量的变化。
作者独立地并重复地在牙周病学和种植学的 7 种主要期刊的 PubMed 电子数据库中搜索了 2005 年至 2007 年和 2009 年至 2011 年发表的 RCT 摘要。使用 2008 年 1 月发布的 CONSORT（临床试验报告统一标准）摘要检查表来独立地并重复地评估选定摘要的报告质量。使用 Cohen κ 统计量来确定审稿人的一致性程度。使用 Pearson χ²检验和/或 Fisher 确切检验来评估两个样本中的报告差异。显著性水平设定为 P <0.05。
本研究共纳入 392 篇摘要。在两个样本中，干预措施、目标和结论等三个项目几乎都得到了完整的报告。相比之下，其他项目（随机分组、试验注册和资金）则从未报告过。仅在试验设计和标题这两个项目中，报告情况发生了显著变化（分别在 CONSORT 前和后样本中报告得更好）。然而，大多数主题在两个摘要样本中都报告得很差。
牙周病学和种植学领域 RCT 摘要的报告质量有待提高。作者应遵循 CONSORT 摘要指南，期刊编辑应制定明确的规则，以提高作者对这些指南的遵守程度。
