Hua Fang, Walsh Tanya, Glenny Anne-Marie, Worthington Helen
Cochrane Oral Health Group, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, UK
Cochrane Oral Health Group, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, UK.
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Dec;38(6):584-592. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv094. Epub 2015 Dec 27.
To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses, investigate any improvement after the release of CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) for Abstracts guidelines, and identify factors associated with reporting quality.
Abstract books of the 2003-07 (Pre-CONSORT period) and 2010-14 (Post-CONSORT period) EOS congresses were obtained from the official website of European Journal of Orthodontics. A hand-search was conducted to identify RCTs. Reporting quality was assessed and scored using the original 17-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Risk ratio and the t-test were used to compare the adequate reporting rate of each item and the overall quality in two periods, respectively. Univariate and multivariate regressions were used to identify predictors of reporting quality.
A total of 138 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean overall CONSORT score was 4.10 (SD: 1.32) and 4.48 (1.31) in the Pre- and Post-CONSORT samples, respectively [P = 0.099; mean difference, -0.39 (95% CI: -0.84, 0.07)]. Only three CONSORT items ('objective', 'interventions', and 'conclusions') were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75 per cent). No abstract provided information regarding the corresponding author, trial registration, and source of funding. Less than 1.5 per cent of the included abstracts sufficiently reported 'randomization', 'recruitment', and 'outcome in the results section'. In the multivariate analysis, greater word count (P = 0.036) and provision of the exact P value (P = 0.006) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.
Our final regression model can explain only about 8 per cent of the variance of reporting quality. Other predictors not included in this study may be investigated in analogous studies.
The reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at EOS congresses was suboptimal. Joint efforts by authors and conference committees to improve reporting are needed.
评估在欧洲正畸学会（EOS）大会上发表的随机对照试验（RCT）摘要的报告质量，调查《CONSORT（试验报告统一标准）摘要》指南发布后报告质量是否有所改善，并确定与报告质量相关的因素。
从《欧洲正畸学杂志》官方网站获取2003 - 2007年（CONSORT之前时期）和2010 - 2014年（CONSORT之后时期）EOS大会的摘要集。通过手工检索来识别随机对照试验。使用原始的17项CONSORT摘要清单对报告质量进行评估和评分。分别采用风险比和t检验来比较两个时期各项目的充分报告率和总体质量。使用单变量和多变量回归来确定报告质量的预测因素。
共纳入并评估了138篇随机对照试验摘要。CONSORT样本中，CONSORT之前和之后的总体平均得分分别为4.10（标准差：1.32）和4.48（1.31）[P = 0.099；平均差异，-0.39（95%置信区间：-0.84，0.07）]。在大多数摘要（>75%）中，只有三个CONSORT项目（“目的”、“干预措施”和“结论”）得到了充分报告。没有摘要提供关于通讯作者、试验注册和资金来源的信息。纳入的摘要中，不足1.5%在“结果”部分充分报告了“随机化”、“招募”和 “结果”。在多变量分析中，更多的字数（P = 0.036）和提供确切的P值（P = 0.006）与更高的报告质量显著相关。
我们最终的回归模型只能解释报告质量方差的约8%。本研究未纳入的其他预测因素可在类似研究中进行调查。
在EOS大会上发表的随机对照试验摘要的报告质量欠佳。作者和会议委员会需要共同努力来提高报告质量。
