ReviewJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Evaluation of quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials on procedural sedation in children after publication of CONSORT guidelines for abstracts: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement provides guidelines for abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study was done to assess the reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs, on procedural sedation in children and identify factors associated with better quality. A PubMed search was conducted from inception of database till July 2017 to identify RCTs on procedural sedation in children. Search terms used were (procedural [All Fields] AND sedation [All Fields]) AND ("child" [MeSH Terms] OR "child" [All Fields] OR "children" [All Fields]) were included in the analysis, while primary RCTs, published in the English language unstructured abstracts, secondary analysis of primary RCTs and studies not exclusively on children we excluded. Our search strategy initially yielded 582 abstracts. Out of these, 535 abstracts were excluded. 47 articles were included in the final analysis. We extracted basic information and data on CONSORT items from abstracts. Each abstract was assessed using a 16-item composite abstract score (CAS) based on the CONSORT guidelines. This abstract quality was further explored by Method Score and by Result Score. Regression analysis was conducted to analyze factors associated with reporting quality. In majority of the abstracts, only objectives and conclusion were adequately reported. Inadequately reported items in >90% of abstracts included randomization, trial status, registration & funding. There was no significant difference in the CAS of abstracts (mean ± SD) published in & before 2008 (12.63 ± 4.0), to those published after 2009 (12.48 ± 4.23). Similarly, there was no significant difference in Result Score and Method Score of the abstracts. After the publication of 'CONSORT for abstracts' guideline, the quality of abstracts of RCTs on procedural sedation has shown suboptimal improvement. We suggest stricter adherence to guidelines by editors and reviewers. A checklist for adherence to CONSORT guidelines could be introduced during submission for the same.
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.