ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2017
Quality of abstracts of pilot trials in heart failure: A protocol for a systematic survey.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Quality of pilot trial abstracts in heart failure is suboptimal: a systematic survey.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPilot trials are initial small-scale studies done to inform the design of larger trials. Their findings like other studies are usually disseminated as peer-reviewed journal articles. Abstracts are used to introduce the contents to readers, and give a general idea about the full reports and sometimes are the only source of information available to readers. Despite their importance, the contents of abstracts of trial reports are usually not informative enough and lack the essential details. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a planned systematic survey with a primary aim of analyzing the reporting quality measured as the completeness of the reporting of pilot trial abstracts in heart failure. The secondary aim will be to explore factors associated with better reporting quality.Abstracts of heart failure pilot trials in humans (journal and conference abstracts) published in the English language from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2016 will be assessed to determine the reporting quality, based on the CONSORT 2010 statement extension to randomized pilot and feasibility trials. All non-pilot/feasibility trials and non-human pilot trials will be excluded. We will search Medline (PUBMED), Cochrane controlled trials register, Scopus and African wide information databases for pilot trials in heart failure. Title and abstracts of identified studies will be screened for inclusion and data extracted independently by two reviewers in duplicate without using the full text. Reported and unreported items on the abstracts will be presented as frequencies and percentages, a descriptive analysis will be used to interpret the reporting quality and regression analysis used for characteristics associated with greater statistical reporting at 95% confidence interval. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42016049911.
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.