Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29696191›Full record

ReviewContemporary clinical trials communications2017

The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature.

Mei Wang, Yanling Jin, Zheng Jing Hu, Alex Thabane, Brittany Dennis, Olga Gajic-Veljanoski, James Paul, Lehana Thabane

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors.

Mei WangDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Yanling JinDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Zheng Jing HuBiostatistics Program, University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Alex ThabaneLife Sciences Program, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Brittany DennisDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Olga Gajic-VeljanoskiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
James PaulDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe stepped wedge trial (SWT) design is a type of the randomized clinical trial (RCT) design in which clusters or individuals are randomly and sequentially crossed over from control to intervention over a number of time periods. Trials using SWT design have become increasingly popular in medical, behavioral and social sciences research. Therefore, complete and transparent reporting of these studies is crucial. In particular, the quality of the abstracts of their reports is important because these may be the only accessible sources for their results.

objectiveThe aims of this survey were to evaluate the reporting quality of SWT abstracts and to identify factors contributing to better reporting quality.

methodsWe performed literature searches to identify relevant articles in English published from November 1987 to October 2016 in the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. At least two reviewers examined the quality of abstract reporting using the 17-item CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) Extension for Abstracts tool. Poisson regression models for incidence rate ratio (IRR) were used to identify factors associated with reporting quality (e.g., CONSORT endorsement, the number of authors, abstract format).

resultsA total of 92 eligible articles were identified. Only 6 from the 17 items were reported in more than 80% of the articles (e.g., the statement of conclusions, contact details for the corresponding author). In the multivariable analysis, the year of publication since 2008 (IRR: 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.33), journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement (IRR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.31), and multiple authorship (IRR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.27) were significantly associated with better reporting quality.

conclusionThe quality of reporting of SWT abstracts was suboptimal, although there have been some significant improvements since 2008. Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by journals is an essential element of improvement strategies. Also, multiple authorship is significantly associated with better quality of abstract reporting.

Indexed as

AbstractCONSORTReporting qualityStepped wedge design randomized trial

Identifiers

PMID29696191
PMCPMC5898470

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.