Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34389560›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016.

Stephanie Knippschild, Jeremias Loddenkemper, Sabrina Tulka, Christine Loddenkemper, Christine Baulig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Reporting quality and spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials related to oral mucositis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Current Status and Trends in Research on Caries Diagnosis: A Bibliometric Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Stephanie KnippschildInstitute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Witten Herdecke Faculty of Health, Witten, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany stephanie.knippschild@uni-wh.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1645-4475
Jeremias LoddenkemperInstitute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Witten Herdecke Faculty of Health, Witten, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.
Sabrina TulkaInstitute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Witten Herdecke Faculty of Health, Witten, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.
Christine LoddenkemperInstitute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Witten Herdecke Faculty of Health, Witten, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.
Christine BauligInstitute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Witten Herdecke Faculty of Health, Witten, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAccess to full texts of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) is often limited, so brief summaries of studies play a pivotal role. In 2008, a checklist was provided to ensure the transparency and completeness of abstracts. The aim of this investigation was to estimate adherence to the reporting guidelines of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria for abstracts (CONSORT-A) in RCT publications. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: Assessment according to the percentage of compliance with the 16 CONSORT-A criteria per study. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis study is based on a full survey (212 RCT abstracts in dental implantology, PubMed search, publication period 2014-2016, 45 journals, median impact factor: 2.328). In addition to merely documenting 'adherence' to criteria, the authors also assessed the 'complete implementation' of the requested information where possible. The collection of data was performed independently by two dentists, and a final consensus was reached. The primary endpoint was evaluated by medians and quartiles. Additionally, a Poisson regression was conducted to detect influencing factors.

resultsA median of 50% (Q1-Q3: 44%-63%) was documented for the 16 criteria listed in the CONSORT-A statement. Nine of the 16 criteria were considered in fewer than 50% of the abstracts. 'Correct implementation' was achieved for a median of 43% (Q1-Q3: 31%-50%) of the criteria. An additional application of Poisson regression revealed that the number of words used had a locally significant impact on the number of reported CONSORT criteria for abstracts (incidence rate ratio 1.001, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.002).

conclusionTransparent and complete reporting in abstracts appears problematic. A limited word count seems to result in a reduction in necessary information. As current scientific knowledge is often not readily available in the form of publications, abstracts constitute the primary basis for decision making in clinical practice and research. This is why journals should refrain from limiting the number of words too strictly in order to facilitate comprehensive reporting in abstracts.

Indexed as

oral & maxillofacial surgeryoral medicinestatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID34389560
PMCPMC8365792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.