Paheerathan Saumiya, Flitti Dihya, Cobourne Martyn T, Hua Fang, Pandis Nikolaos, Seehra Jadbinder
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, Floor 21, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom.
Centre for Craniofacial Development & Regeneration, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, Floor 27, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom.
Eur J Orthod. 2025 Jun 12;47(4). doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjaf039.
Throughout a trial report, clear and accurate reporting is essential. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) Congress between 2015-2024. Associations between reporting quality and abstract characteristics were explored.
All EOS Congress scientific abstracts published between 2015-2024 (2020 excluded) were included. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per CONSORT item and sum score were calculated. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and abstract characteristics was undertaken.
139 RCT congress abstracts were analysed. The most frequent years of RCT abstract presentation were 2018 (14.4%) and 2023 (19.4%). RCT abstracts were more likely to be poster types (62.6%), with corresponding authors based in Europe (77.7%), single centre (64.7%) and reporting a non-significant result for the primary outcome (54.0%). The mean overall total quality reporting score was 17.6 (SD 5.6, min 15 and max 22.8) out of a maximum score of 50. Items that tended not to be reported include authors contact details, participant (settings), randomization procedures and trial registration. Posters achieved lower scores compared to oral abstracts (-2.96; 95% CI -4.86, -1.07; P < 0.01). Additionally, an abstract word count greater than 251 words was associated with higher total score (3.28; 95% CI 0.74, 5.82; P = 0.012). A weak association (0.29, 95% CI: -0.03-0.62, p = 0.07) between year of abstract publication and an improvement in overall reporting score over time was evident.
Only one society congress were assessed which may impact the generalisability of the results.
In relation to the CONSORT reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts checklist, RCT abstracts presented at EOS congress between 2015-2024 remain sub-optimal with reporting of key items lacking. However, reporting quality scores have shown an association with type of presentation (oral or poster), abstract word count and some evidence of improvement over time. Measures to encourage clear and consistent RCT abstract reporting are required.
在整个试验报告中，清晰准确的报告至关重要。本研究的目的是评估2015年至2024年在欧洲正畸学会（EOS）大会上发表的随机对照试验（RCT）摘要的报告质量。探讨了报告质量与摘要特征之间的关联。
纳入2015年至2024年（不包括2020年）发表的所有EOS大会科学摘要。计算描述性统计量和频率分布。计算每个CONSORT项目充分报告的平均值和总分。在探索性基础上，对摘要分数与摘要特征进行单变量线性回归分析。
分析了139篇RCT大会摘要。RCT摘要发表最频繁的年份是2018年（14.4%）和2023年（19.4%）。RCT摘要更有可能是海报类型（62.6%），通讯作者来自欧洲（77.7%），单中心（64.7%），并且主要结局报告为无显著结果（54.0%）。在满分50分中，总体报告质量平均总分是17.6（标准差5.6，最小值15，最大值22.8）。往往未报告的项目包括作者联系方式、参与者（背景）、随机化程序和试验注册。与口头摘要相比，海报得分更低（-2.96；95%置信区间-4.86，-1.07；P<0.01）。此外，摘要字数超过251字与更高的总分相关（3.28；95%置信区间0.74，5.82；P=0.012）。摘要发表年份与总体报告分数随时间的改善之间存在微弱关联（0.29，95%置信区间：-0.03-0.62，p=0.07）。
仅评估了一个学会大会，这可能会影响结果的普遍性。
根据CONSORT在期刊和会议摘要中报告随机对照试验的清单，2015年至2024年在EOS大会上发表的RCT摘要仍然不理想，关键项目报告缺失。然而，报告质量得分与报告类型（口头或海报）、摘要字数以及随时间的一些改善证据相关。需要采取措施鼓励清晰一致地报告RCT摘要。
