ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials and factors associated with complete reporting: a meta-research study.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe CONSORT statement for reporting abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provides a list of essential items to report to ensure reliable interpretation. We evaluated the completeness of reporting of RCT abstracts published in high-impact-factor journals and examined factors associated with adherence to the CONSORT for abstracts.
methodsOn March 5, 2024, we searched PubMed for abstracts of RCTs published in the top five journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2023) in 22 medical fields, including Medicine, General & Internal, from July 1, 2023, to February 29, 2024. We assessed the completeness of reporting of the 15 items of the CONSORT for abstracts in duplicate via a standardized data extraction form. The primary outcome was the mean number of items adequately reported. The prespecified factors potentially associated with adherence to CONSORT for abstracts included study-specific factors (income category of the country, funding type, and sample size) and journal-specific factors (type of journal [specialized vs. general medicine], CONSORT endorsement, abstract word count limit, and structured abstract).
resultsAmong 1267 citations, 610 abstracts published in 82 distinct journals were included. The mean (SD) number of items adequately reported was 10.1 (2.5). Among the 610 abstracts included, the quality of reporting varied across items; some items were adequately reported (97% (n=594) for participants, 100% (n=610) for interventions, 96% (n=585) for objectives) and others were poorly reported (29% (n=175) for trial design, 36% (n=221) for funding sources, 32% (n=197) for blinding and 13% (n=81) for randomization). The multivariate linear-mixed effects model showed that a sample size above 100, the CONSORT endorsement and Medicine, General & Internal journals were associated with a higher mean number of items adequately reported.
conclusionsReporting of RCT abstracts remains incomplete particularly for key items including trial design, random sequence generation, blinding, and funding source disclosure. CONSORT endorsement, publication in a general medical journal and larger sample size were associated with better adherence to CONSORT for abstracts.
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.