ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Quality of Abstracts Reporting in Periodontal Randomized Controlled Trials: A Descriptive Analysis.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts greatly impacts the way readers perceive interventional outcomes, influencing their scientific applicability. Recent data about the quality of periodontal RCT abstracts that have been published is lacking. Thus, the aim of this study is to assess the reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs published in periodontal journals in recent years. The study is descriptive and cross-sectional, surveying the abstracts of RCTs published in the Journal of Periodontology (JOP), Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JOCP), and Journal of Periodontal Research (JOPR) between 2018 and 2022. The assessment of reporting quality was performed employing the CONSORT criteria for abstracts of RCTs. The quantitative values for each item on the CONSORT checklist for all published RCT abstracts were derived by descriptive statistical techniques, including univariate analysis. Comparisons were drawn between the journals and the different variables included in the study. The investigation identified 176 RCTs (11.7%) out of a total of 1506 articles published in these three journals over a period of four years. The primary observation of this research is that the mean quality scores were a mere 52.36 ± 9.9 for all the published periodontal RCTs abstracts. JOCP obtained the highest quality scores (54.7 ± 10.5), followed by JOPR (52.4 ± 9.9) and JOP (49.1 ± 7.9). RCT abstracts from Europe had higher reporting quality, whereas those from Africa were the lowest. The trials carried out in mixed settings showed better quality in the reporting of abstracts compared to those conducted in university, private, or governmental settings. RCTs with more than six authors and statisticians involved showed higher quality scores. These results are not indicative of a substantial improvement when compared to previous years (2015-2018). Abstracts of RCTs reported are below par in the preeminent periodontology journals. There has been no discernible progress over the years, notably in terms of blinding, the randomization description, and the disclosure of potential harms.
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.