Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials related to implant dentistry

Max C. Menne · Nikolaos Pandis · Clóvis Mariano Faggion

8 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Periodontology

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 of scientific articles should be accurate and detailed in summarizing the information in the full-text because they are the first article section the reader examines. This study assessed the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts related to implant dentistry and examined associations between reporting quality and study characteristics. METHODS: of January 2021, we searched the PubMed database for abstracts of RCTs published in high-ranked periodontology and implant dentistry journals from 2016 to 2021. For each abstract, we assessed if the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist items were reported completely, partially, or not reported. An Overall CONSORT Score (OCS) and relative score (OCS%) were calculated as a proxy to checklist adherance. Linear regression models were fitted to analyze associations between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting. RESULTS: Four-hundred and thirty four of the 678 retrieved abstracts were eligible for inclusion. The mean OCS and OCS% were 6,23 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.56) or 41.5% (SD = 10.4), respectively. Items most frequently reported included the title (n = 434; 100%), intended intervention (n = 425; 98%) and conclusions (n = 430; 99%). Participant allocation, blinding, and trial registration were rarely completely reported with frequencies of 2%, 3% and 4%, respectively. We found that number of authors, continent, type of RCT, number of centers, report of ethical approval, funding, structure and length of the abstract were associated with better abstract reporting. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal. Journals should start to incorporate and endorse the use of the CONSORT-A guidelines in their instructions to authors to enhance reporting quality. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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 — 8 citations exist upstream.

References

2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials 2009A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research 2001Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials 2002Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions 2008CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration 2003Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality?

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.