Cheng Liandi, Zheng Yunhao, Weng Yaxin, Yi Yating, Zhou Xueman, Jiang Nan, Xiong Xin
State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
J Oral Rehabil. 2024 Aug 2:2278-2288. doi: 10.1111/joor.13824.
Poor reporting quality and spin in randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts can lead to misinterpretation and distorted interpretation of results.
This methodological study aimed to assess the reporting quality and spin among RCT abstracts on splint therapy for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and explore the association between spin and potentially related factors.
The authors searched PubMed for RCTs on splint therapy for TMD. The reporting quality of each abstract was assessed using the original 16-item CONSORT for abstracts checklist. The authors evaluated the presence and characteristics of spin only in abstracts with nonsignificant primary outcomes according to pre-determined spin strategies. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the presence of spin.
A total of 148 abstracts were included in the reporting quality evaluation. The mean overall CONSORT score (OCS) was 5.86 (score range: 0-16). Only interventions, objectives and conclusions were adequately reported. Of the 61 RCT abstracts included for spin analysis, spin was identified in 38 abstracts (62.3%), among which 32 abstracts (52.3%) had spin in the Results section and 21 (34.4%) had spin in the Conclusions section. A significantly lower presence of spin was found in studies with exact p-value reporting (OR: 0.170; 95% CI: 0.032-0.887; p = .036) and a two-arm comparison design (OR: 11.777; 95% CI: 2.171-63.877; p = .004).
The reporting quality of RCT abstracts on splint therapy for TMD is suboptimal and the prevalence of spin is high. More awareness and joint efforts are needed to improve reporting quality and minimize spin.
随机对照试验(RCT)摘要的报告质量差和带有倾向性会导致对结果的误解和歪曲解读。
这项方法学研究旨在评估颞下颌关节紊乱病(TMD)夹板治疗RCT摘要的报告质量和倾向性,并探讨倾向性与潜在相关因素之间的关联。
作者在PubMed上检索了关于TMD夹板治疗的RCT。使用原始的16项CONSORT摘要清单评估每个摘要的报告质量。作者仅根据预先确定的倾向性策略,在主要结局无统计学意义的摘要中评估倾向性的存在及其特征。进行逻辑回归分析以确定与倾向性存在相关的因素。
共有148篇摘要纳入报告质量评估。CONSORT总分(OCS)的平均值为5.86(分数范围:0 - 16)。仅干预措施、目的和结论得到了充分报告。在纳入倾向性分析的61篇RCT摘要中,38篇(62.3%)存在倾向性,其中32篇(52.3%)在结果部分存在倾向性,21篇(34.4%)在结论部分存在倾向性。在报告精确p值的研究(比值比:0.170;95%置信区间:0.032 - 0.887;p = 0.036)和双臂比较设计的研究(比值比:11.777;95%置信区间:2.171 - 63.877;p = 0.004)中,倾向性的存在显著较低。
TMD夹板治疗RCT摘要的报告质量欠佳,倾向性的发生率较高。需要提高认识并共同努力以改善报告质量并尽量减少倾向性。