Sriganesh Kamath, Bharadwaj Suparna, Wang Mei, Abbade Luciana P F, Couban Rachel, Mbuagbaw Lawrence, Thabane Lehana
Department of Neuroanaesthesia, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Department of Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 21;6(11):e012319. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012319.
Abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often the first and the only source read in a journal by busy healthcare providers. This necessitates good reporting of abstracts. The quality of reporting of abstracts, though gradually improving over time, is still not uniform across medical journals. Improvement in completeness of reporting of abstracts has been documented in general medical journals after the publication of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) extension for abstracts in 2008. Currently, this aspect has not been assessed with regards to pain journals. This study aims to compare the completeness of reporting of abstracts before and after the publication of CONSORT statement for abstracts in five pain journals.
The abstracts of RCTs published from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2007 (pre-CONSORT) and from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015 (post-CONSORT) will be assessed for the quality of reporting. Studies without abstracts, non-English abstracts, abstracts not reporting on RCTs or on humans and conference abstracts will be excluded. A thorough search of MEDLINE will be carried out in April 2016. All identified studies will be screened for inclusion based on titles and abstracts. Data will be extracted by two sets of independent reviewers for each abstract in duplicate regarding compliance with CONSORT statement for abstracts. Full-text review will be performed to obtain additional characteristics which are likely to affect reporting quality. The unadjusted and adjusted differences in the mean number of items reported will be analysed using a two sample t-test and generalised estimation equation in SPSS.
As far as we know, this is the first study to evaluate reporting quality of abstracts of pain journals based on CONSORT extension for abstracts. The findings of this study will be disseminated by a presentation at a conference and through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Ethics committee approval was not sought for this survey.
随机对照试验（RCT）的摘要往往是忙碌的医疗保健提供者在期刊中阅读的首个也是唯一的资料来源。因此，摘要的良好报告至关重要。尽管摘要报告质量随时间推移逐渐提高，但在医学期刊中仍不一致。2008年《试验报告统一标准》（CONSORT）摘要扩展版发布后，普通医学期刊中摘要报告的完整性有所改善。目前，尚未针对疼痛期刊评估这一方面。本研究旨在比较五本疼痛期刊在CONSORT摘要声明发布前后摘要报告的完整性。
将对2005年1月1日至2007年12月31日（CONSORT之前）以及2013年1月1日至2015年12月31日（CONSORT之后）发表的RCT摘要进行报告质量评估。无摘要的研究、非英文摘要、未报告RCT或人类研究的摘要以及会议摘要将被排除。2016年4月将对MEDLINE进行全面检索。所有识别出的研究将根据标题和摘要进行纳入筛选。将由两组独立评审员对每篇摘要进行数据提取，一式两份，以评估是否符合CONSORT摘要声明。将进行全文审查以获取可能影响报告质量的其他特征。使用SPSS中的两样本t检验和广义估计方程分析报告项目平均数量的未调整和调整差异。
据我们所知，这是第一项基于CONSORT摘要扩展版评估疼痛期刊摘要报告质量的研究。本研究结果将在会议上进行展示，并通过在同行评审期刊上发表来传播。本次调查未寻求伦理委员会批准。
