Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39399807›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024

Evaluating Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts in Plastic Surgery Journals with CONSORT Guidelines Using GPT-4 AI.

Abdullah A Al Qurashi, Amro Hajja, Ghazi F Alabdul Razzak, Dana Waleed Alkuwaity, Eman Naeem Chaudhri, Ruba Ibrahim Alharbi, Adnan M Osama Al Dwehji, Hala Abdullah Almusa, Alanoud Hammam Asaad, Hussain Amin Alobaidi and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors.

Abdullah A Al QurashiFrom the College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Amro HajjaCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ghazi F Alabdul RazzakCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Dana Waleed AlkuwaityCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Alahsaa, Saudi Arabia.
Eman Naeem ChaudhriCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ruba Ibrahim AlharbiCollege of Medicine, Batterjee Medical College, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Adnan M Osama Al DwehjiCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hala Abdullah AlmusaCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Alanoud Hammam AsaadCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hussain Amin AlobaidiFrom the College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ibrahim R HalawaniFaculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Adnan G GelidanDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is crucial for accurate interpretation and synthesis of evidence. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines provide a standardized framework for reporting RCT abstracts. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of RCT abstracts published in three major plastic surgery journals to the CONSORT tool guideline for reporting abstracts, utilizing Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 artificial intelligence (GPT-4 AI) technology. Methods: Abstracts of RCTs published between 2010 and 2023 were collected. The GPT-4 AI model was utilized to assess the abstracts based on the CONSORT criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to report the compliance scores and identify areas where abstracts lacked compliance. Results: Of the initially identified 500 abstracts, a total of 371 RCT abstracts met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The mean CONSORT score was 10.05 (±2.22), with a median score of 10.72. Specific areas where abstracts lacked compliance included trial design (39.6%), participant details (28.8%), intervention descriptions (15.6%), randomization process (25.3%), and the number of participants analyzed (33.4%). Trial registration (18.3%) and funding information (15.1%) were also frequently missing. Conclusions: Our study's innovative use of the GPT-4 AI model for analysis demonstrated the potential of AI technology in streamlining and enhancing the evaluation of research compliance. We advocate for heightened awareness and more rigorous application of CONSORT guidelines among authors, reviewers, and journal editors. Emphasizing the role of AI technology in the evaluative process can further improve the reporting quality of future RCTs in plastic surgery, contributing to more reliable and transparent research in the field.

Identifiers

PMID39399807
PMCPMC11469817

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.