Observational studyBMJ open2022
Did an introduction of CONSORT for abstracts guidelines improve reporting quality of randomised controlled trials' abstracts on
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials and factors associated with complete reporting: a meta-research study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Reporting Quality of Glaucoma Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Personalized Approach in Eradication ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine abstracts' adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) statement and to explore the factors associated with reporting quality.
designAn observational study.
settingAbstracts of randomised controlled trials published between 2010 and 2019, found searching the MEDLINE database.
participantsA total of 451 abstracts of the clinical trials PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Abstracts' reporting quality was determined by assessing their adherence to 17-item CONSORT-A checklist, with overall score being calculated as the sum of items that were adequately reported for each abstract. Additional factors that might influence the reporting quality of the abstracts were analysed, with univariate and multivariate linear regression used to determine how those factors influenced the overall reporting quality.
resultsIncluded abstracts had an overall median quality score of 8/17 (IQR 7-9). Large proportions of abstracts adequately reported interventions, participants, objectives, numbers randomised and conclusions (97.1, 99.3, 89.1. 94.7 and 98.4% of abstracts, respectively). Trial design, randomisation, blinding and funding were severely under-reported with only 8.0, 2.7, 11.0 and 2.0% of abstracts reporting each item. Overall quality scores for
conclusionsThe overall reporting quality of abstracts was inadequate. The endorsement of CONSORT-A guidelines by more journals might improve the standards of reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.