ArticlePloS one2017
Assessing reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in psychiatry: Adherence to CONSORT for abstracts: A systematic review.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Efficacy of Rule-Based Versus Large Language Model-Based Chatbots in Alleviating Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Factors associated with the reporting quality of low back pain systematic review abstracts in physical therapy: a methodological study.Brazilian journal of physical therapyPooled it
- Trial
- Review
- Evaluation of Reporting Quality of Glaucoma Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of randomized controlled trials: a primer and tutorial for mental health researchers.Trials · 2023Article
- Reporting Quality of the Abstracts for Randomized Controlled Trials in Pediatric Dentistry.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Time to Publication for Randomized Clinical Trials Presented as Abstracts at Three Gastroenterology and Hepatology Conferences in 2017.Gastro hep advances · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Did an introduction of CONSORT for abstracts guidelines improve reporting quality of randomised controlled trials' abstracts onBMJ open · 2022Observational
- Evaluation of reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials regarding patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement for abstracts.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Challenges in developmental psychology, a focus on Sustainable Development.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Abstracts for reports of randomised trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2020Review
- Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2019Article
- Reporting in the abstracts presented at the 5th AfriNEAD (African Network for Evidence-to-Action in Disability) Conference in Ghana.Research integrity and peer review · 2019Review
- Beyond Research Reporting Guidelines: How can the Quality of Published Research be Enhanced?Indian journal of psychological medicineArticle
- Evaluation of quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials on procedural sedation in children after publication of CONSORT guidelines for abstracts: A systematic review.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts is important as readers often make their first judgments based on the abstracts. This study aims to assess the reporting quality of psychiatry RCT abstracts published before and after the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) guidelines.
methodsMEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted to identify psychiatric RCTs published during 2005-2007 (pre-CONSORT) and 2012-2014 (post-CONSORT). Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts using a 18-point overall quality score (OQS) based on the CONSORT-A guidelines. Linear regression analysis was conducted to analyze factors associated with reporting quality.
resultsAmong 1,927 relevant articles, 285 pre-CONSORT and 214 post-CONSORT psychiatric RCT abstracts were included for analysis. The mean OQS improved from 6.9 (range: 3-13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.7-7.2) to 8.2 (range: 4-16; 95% CI: 7.8-8.5) after the CONSORT-A guidelines. Despite improvement, methods of randomization, allocation concealment, and funding source remained to be insufficiently reported (<5%) even after the release of CONSORT-A. High-impact general medical journals, multicenter design, positive outcome, and structured abstracts were associated with better reporting quality.
conclusionsThe reporting quality in psychiatric RCT abstracts, although improved, remains suboptimal. To improve reporting quality of psychiatry RCT abstracts, greater efforts by both investigators and journal editors are required to enhance better adherence to the CONSORT-A guidelines.
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.