Reporting of Randomized Clinical Trial Descriptors and Use of Structured Abstracts

Roberta W. Scherer

67 citations0/0 files storedJAMA

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

CONTEXT: Structured abstracts, that is, abstracts that describe a study using requisite content headings, provide more informative content. Concomitant reporting in the text of the report might improve with structured abstract use because of increased awareness by authors or editors of important study areas associated with content headings. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether structured abstract use is associated with improved reporting of randomized clinical trials. DESIGN AND SETTING: Survey of trial reports published the year preceding, of, and following new use of structured abstracts, found by hand searching Archives of Ophthalmology (1992-1994) and Ophthalmology (1991-1993), as well as trial reports published concurrently without change in abstract format (American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1991-1994). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured the inclusion of 56 criteria derived from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) descriptors (JAMA 1996;276:637-639) in the text of each report and calculated the number of criteria included per report and the proportion of reports including individual criteria. Reports with structured abstracts were compared with those without, and reports published in 1993 and 1994 in the American Journal of Ophthalmology were compared with those published in 1991 and 1992. RESULTS: The mean (SEM) number of criteria included by authors was 15.8 (0.4) per report in 125 trial reports. We found no difference in the mean number of criteria included or the proportion of reports that included specific criteria by journal. Following structured abstract use, there was no difference in either the mean number of criteria per report or the proportion of reports including a majority of criteria within each CONSORT subheading. Four criteria were included more often and 2 less often following structured abstract use in individual journals. CONCLUSION: Using CONSORT descriptor criteria to evaluate reporting quality, we found no difference in text reporting associated with structured abstract use in the journals examined.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 67 citations exist upstream.

References

1990More Informative Abstracts Revisited 1982Reporting on Methods in Clinical Trials 1996Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials:Current Issues and Future Directions 1994Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association.1993Presentation Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts

Cited by

1998Beyond CONSORT: Need for Improved Reporting Standards for Clinical Trials 2007Quality of Reporting of Key Methodological Items of Randomized Controlled Trials in Clinical Ophthalmic Journals 2008CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration 2001The quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials published in Ophthalmology 2000Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews.2002Effects of Technical Editing in Biomedical Journals 2006Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: Survey of output and quality of reporting

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.