ArticlePloS one2025
Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dental medicine published from 2015-2023: A methodological study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWell-reported scientific abstracts are essential as they provide a concise summary of key research findings. Our study aimed to assess the completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dental medicine using the CONSORT for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist.
methodsThis was a methodological cross-sectional study. We searched PubMed for RCTs published between August 2015 and August 2023 in Q1 journals from the "Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine" category of the Journal Citation Reports. Two authors independently screened the records and assessed their adherence to 15 CONSORT-A items (items Authors and Recruitment were not assessed) for each abstract. All items were scored with '1' if reported adequately (in line with CONSORT-A), '0' if reported inadequately, and '0.5' if the reporting was partially adequate. We calculated each abstract's adherence (percentage) rate and median adherence across all abstracts. The adherence to CONSORT-A items was determined by dividing the number of articles that reported each item adequately by the total number of articles included. We also conducted a Jonckheere-Terpstra trend test to assess the temporal trend.
resultsThe search resulted in 1691 records, of which 1564 were eligible for inclusion. We analyzed a random sample of 400 abstracts. Median adherence to CONSORT-A overall was 43.3% (95% CI 43.3 to 43.3). Items with the highest adherence scores were 'Conclusions', 'Objective', and 'Interventions', while 'Funding', 'Randomization', and 'Harms' had the lowest adherence scores. Median adherence to CONSORT-A has not improved over time (p = 0.342). For each analyzed year, mean adherence to CONSORT-A was around 40%.
conclusionsReporting in abstracts of RCTs in dental medicine was suboptimal, and there was no improvement from 2015 to 2023. Improved guideline enforcement and author education are vital for enhancing abstract reporting quality and transparency.
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.