Department of Orthodontics, Guys and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2013 Mar;13(1):1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2012.11.001.
A widespread assessment of the reporting of RCT abstracts published in dental journals is lacking. Our aim was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts published in leading dental specialty journals using, as a guide, the CONSORT for abstracts checklist.
Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in seven dental specialty journals. The quality of abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified checklist based on the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted.
228 RCT abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions, objectives and conclusions within abstracts were adequate. Inadequately reported items included: title, participants, outcomes, random number generation, numbers randomized and effect size estimate. Randomization restrictions, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis, harms, registration and funding were rarely described.
The mean overall reporting quality score was suboptimal at 62.5% (95% CI: 61.9, 63.0). Significantly better abstract reporting was noted in certain specialty journals and in multicenter trials.
目前缺乏对发表在牙科学期刊上的 RCT 摘要报告情况的广泛评估。我们旨在使用 CONSORT 摘要检查表作为指南，调查主要牙科学专业期刊上发表的摘要报告的质量。
电子和补充手动搜索确定了发表在七种牙科学专业期刊上的 RCT。使用基于 CONSORT 摘要检查表的修改清单评估摘要报告的质量。采用描述性统计和单变量及多变量分析。
共确定了 228 篇 RCT 摘要。摘要中干预措施、目标和结论的报告是充分的。报告不充分的项目包括：标题、参与者、结果、随机数生成、随机化的数量和效应量估计。很少描述随机限制、分配隐藏、盲法、分析数量、置信区间、意向治疗分析、危害、注册和资金。
总体报告质量平均得分为 62.5%（95%CI：61.9，63.0），得分较低。某些专业期刊和多中心试验的摘要报告明显更好。
Zotero 插件