Reporting Quality for Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials in Cancer Nursing Research

Jia–Wen Guo · Sarah Iribarren

25 citations0/0 files storedCancer Nursing

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

BACKGROUND: Abstracts are often used to screen a journal article. Little is known about the reporting quality for abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cancer nursing. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the quality of abstracts reporting published RCTs in cancer nursing and examined factors contributing to better reporting quality. METHODS: This is a literature review study. Searches were conducted in PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for English-language RCTs involving cancer nursing. Quality of abstract reporting was assessed and scored based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial statement for Abstracts (CONSORT for Abstracts). Descriptive statistics, univariate, and multivariate analyses were used to identify predictors of better quality of abstracts. RESULTS: A total of 227 eligible articles published between 1984 and 2010 from 68 journals were identified. On average 46% of the items in the CONSORT for Abstracts were reported. More than 80% of the studies addressed only 6 of the 17 items from the CONSORT for Abstracts. Items concerning randomization, blinding, and intent-to-treat analysis were reported by fewer than 30% of the studies. Publication year, word count, impact factor, number of institutes, corresponding author's country, and funding accounted for 31.6% to 33.2% of the variance of the quality of abstracts based on a multiple regression model. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality score of cancer nursing RCT abstracts was suboptimal. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Strategies to improve abstract reporting quality are needed. To ensure that essential RCT information can be reported in the abstract, journal editors may need to reassess word count limits.

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 — 25 citations exist upstream.

References

1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 2005Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.2006The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor 2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 1998The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials 2008CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts 2008Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'2012Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis

Cited by

2018Structure formats of randomised controlled trial abstracts: a cross-sectional analysis of their current usage and association with methodology reporting 2016Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines 2015An interrupted time series analysis showed suboptimal improvement in reporting quality of trial abstract

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.