ReviewThe journal of headache and pain2011
CONSORT recommendations in abstracts of randomised, controlled trials on migraine and headache.
Review in The journal of headache and pain, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A multiyear systematic survey of the quality of reporting for randomised trials in dentistry, neurology and geriatrics published in journals of Spain and Latin America.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Pharmacy journal abstracts published in PubMed that abide by the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A CONSORT statement on the content of abstracts of randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) was published in 2008. I therefore reviewed the abstracts from 2009 to 2010 published on RCTs in Cephalalgia, Headache and other (non-headache) journals. The following items were reviewed: number of patients, reporting of response either in percentages or absolute values, the use of p values, and effect size with its precision. The latter was recommended in the CONSORT statement. A total of 46 abstracts were reviewed and effect size with 95% confidence intervals was only reported in seven abstracts. The influence of the CONSORT statement on reporting in abstracts has so far only had a limited influence on the headache literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.