Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29696169›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2017

Quality of abstracts of randomized control trials in five top pain journals: A systematic survey.

Kamath Sriganesh, Suparna Bharadwaj, Mei Wang, Luciana P F Abbade, Yanling Jin, Mariamma Philip, Rachel Couban, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Lehana Thabane

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kamath SriganeshDepartment of Neuroanaesthesia, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India.
Suparna BharadwajDepartment of Neuroanaesthesia, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India.
Mei WangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Luciana P F AbbadeDepartment of Dermatology and Radiotherapy, Botucatu Medical School, Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Yanling JinDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mariamma PhilipDepartment of Biostatistics, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India.
Rachel CoubanMichael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe reporting quality of abstracts of randomized control trials (RCTs) is inadequate despite the publication of consolidated standards of reporting trials extension for abstracts (CONSORT-A). We compared the reporting quality of abstracts in pain journals before and after the publication of CONSORT-A.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE in April-2016 for RCTs published in five pain journals: Pain, Pain Physician, European Journal of Pain, Clinical Journal of Pain and Pain Practice for pre- and post-CONSORT-A period (2005-2007 and 2013-2015). Data were extracted in duplicate from 250 abstracts for compliance with CONSORT-A, and for items known to affect reporting quality: journal endorsement of CONSORT, number of trial centers, sample-size, type of intervention, industry-sponsorship and significance of results. The primary outcome was mean number of items reported and the secondary outcome was the reporting of each item. We used logistic regression and Poisson regression for analyses.

resultsMost trials were single centric (76%), had sample size <100 (63%), involved pharmacological intervention (59%) and were non-industry funded (70%). The mean number of items reported was better for 2013-2015 (mean difference 0.94; 95% confidence-interval [CI]: 0.50-1.38, p < 0.001). Post-CONSORT-A, trials were more likely to report as randomized in the title (odds ratio (OR) 2.69; 95% CI 1.61-4.49), describe eligibility criteria and settings (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.35-4.54), provide effect size and precision for primary outcome (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.19-5.16), inform harms (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.05-3.07) and report trial registration (OR 5.13; 95% CI 1.44-18.32). Post-CONSORT-A period (incident rate ratio (IRR) 1.15; 95% CI 1.07-1.24), endorsement of CONSORT statement by the journal (IRR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.14), multi-centric studies (IRR 1.14; 95% CI 1.08-1.20), and studies with pharmacological interventions (IRR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02-1.13) were significantly associated with reporting of more items.

conclusionsAbstract reporting for trials in pain literature was better in the post-CONSORT-A period, but there is room for improvement.

Indexed as

AbstractClinical trialJournalPainReporting quality

Identifiers

PMID29696169
PMCPMC5898559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.