Reporting quality of abstracts of veterinary randomized controlled trials

Rachel E. Maranville Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078.

Search for other papers by Rachel E. Maranville in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Andrea K. Popken Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078.

Search for other papers by Andrea K. Popken in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Reint Meursinge Reynders Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Oral Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, 1007 Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Search for other papers by Reint Meursinge Reynders in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DDS, PhD
,
João Brandão Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078.

Search for other papers by João Brandão in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 LMV, MS
, and
Nicola Di Girolamo Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078.

Search for other papers by Nicola Di Girolamo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DMV, PhD

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adherence of veterinary randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts to the recommendations on minimum abstract information included in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist for RCT abstracts and to identify characteristics associated with the number of CONSORT items reported.

SAMPLE

212 abstracts representing all RCTs published in 5 general veterinary journals in 2013 and 2018.

PROCEDURES

2 investigators independently assessed whether each of the 15 CONSORT checklist items for abstracts applicable to veterinary medicine was reported. Generalized linear mixed models were built to explore associations of selected variables with the total number of checklist items reported.

RESULTS

Abstracts included a median of 5 checklist items (range, 2 to 10 items). None met the recommendations for reporting participant recruitment and funding source. Less than 25% of abstracts met the recommendations for the title, participant eligibility criteria, primary outcome, randomization technique, blinding, numbers analyzed, primary outcome results, and harms to participants. The number of items reported was higher in abstracts of RCTs that included clinical patients (vs other participants; OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.22). The number of items reported did not significantly change over time.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results suggested that the reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs in general veterinary journals was suboptimal per CONSORT recommendations. Because abstracts may be the only reference material available in certain settings, improvements are warranted to ensure readers have the information they need to properly interpret reported findings.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adherence of veterinary randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts to the recommendations on minimum abstract information included in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist for RCT abstracts and to identify characteristics associated with the number of CONSORT items reported.

SAMPLE

212 abstracts representing all RCTs published in 5 general veterinary journals in 2013 and 2018.

PROCEDURES

2 investigators independently assessed whether each of the 15 CONSORT checklist items for abstracts applicable to veterinary medicine was reported. Generalized linear mixed models were built to explore associations of selected variables with the total number of checklist items reported.

RESULTS

Abstracts included a median of 5 checklist items (range, 2 to 10 items). None met the recommendations for reporting participant recruitment and funding source. Less than 25% of abstracts met the recommendations for the title, participant eligibility criteria, primary outcome, randomization technique, blinding, numbers analyzed, primary outcome results, and harms to participants. The number of items reported was higher in abstracts of RCTs that included clinical patients (vs other participants; OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.22). The number of items reported did not significantly change over time.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results suggested that the reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs in general veterinary journals was suboptimal per CONSORT recommendations. Because abstracts may be the only reference material available in certain settings, improvements are warranted to ensure readers have the information they need to properly interpret reported findings.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Di Girolamo (nicoladiggi@gmail.com).
  • 1.

    Byar DP, Simon RM, Friedewald WT, et al. Randomized clinical trials. Perspectives on some recent ideas. N Engl J Med 1976;295:7480.

  • 2.

    Di Girolamo N, Meursinge Reynders R. Deficiencies of effectiveness of intervention studies in veterinary medicine: a cross-sectional survey of ten leading veterinary and medical journals. PeerJ 2016;4:e1649.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Sargeant JM, Thompson A, Valcour J, et al. Quality of reporting of clinical trials of dogs and cats and associations with treatment effects. J Vet Intern Med 2010;24:4450.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Sargeant JM, Elgie R, Valcour J, et al. Methodological quality and completeness of reporting in clinical trials conducted in livestock species. Prev Vet Med 2009;91:107115.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Sargeant JM, Saint-Onge J, Valcour J, et al. Quality of reporting in clinical trials of preharvest food safety interventions and associations with treatment effect. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2009;6:989999.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Di Girolamo N, Giuffrida MA, Winter AL, et al. In veterinary trials reporting and communication regarding randomisation procedures is suboptimal. Vet Rec 2017;181:195.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    The PloS Medicine editors. The impact of open access upon public health. PLoS Med 2006;3:e252.

  • 8.

    Saint S, Christakis DA, Saha S, et al. Journal reading habits of internists. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:881884.

  • 9.

    Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001;1:2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 2010;8:18.

  • 12.

    Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2008;5:e20.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Snedeker KG, Canning P, Totton SC, et al. Completeness of reporting in abstracts from clinical trials of pre-harvest interventions against foodborne pathogens. Prev Vet Med 2012;104:1522.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Clarivate Web of Science. Journal citation reports. Available at: clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/journal-citation-reports/. Accessed Dec 3, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    National Center for Biotechnology Information. Randomized controlled trial [publication type]. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/68016449. Accessed Jun 15, 2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Cochrane Community. Glossary. Randomized controlled trial [publication type]. Available at: https://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/SURE-Guides-v2.1/Collectedfiles/source/glossary.html. Accessed Jun 15, 2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, et al. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 1994;272:125128.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Burns K. AVMA launches database of clinical studies. Available at: www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/160715a.aspx. Accessed Oct 22, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Wikipedia. Available at: www.wikipedia.org. Accessed Jan 16, 2019.

  • 20.

    Chhapola V, Tiwari S, Brar R, et al. An interrupted time series analysis showed suboptimal improvement in reporting quality of trial abstract. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;71:1117.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Bigna JJ, Noubiap JJ, Asangbeh SL, et al. Abstracts reporting of HIV/AIDS randomized controlled trials in general medicine and infectious diseases journals: completeness to date and improvement in the quality since CONSORT extension for abstracts. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016;16:138.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Chen Y, Li J, Ai C, et al. Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals. PLoS One 2010;5:e11926.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Berwanger O, Ribeiro RA, Finkelsztejn A, et al. The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:387392.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Bernal-Delgado E, Fisher ES. Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:14.

  • 25.

    Giuffrida MA. A systematic review of adverse event reporting in companion animal clinical trials evaluating cancer treatment. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2016;249:10791087.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Hetherington J, Dickersin K, Chalmers I, et al. Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics 1989;84:374380.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Abaid LN, Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Reducing publication bias of prospective clinical trials through trial registration. Contraception 2007;76:339341.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Reveiz L, Cortés-Jofré M, Lobos CA, et al. Influence of trial registration on reporting quality of randomized trials: study from highest ranked journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:12161222.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Sargeant JM, O'Connor AM, Gardner IA, et al. The REFLECT statement: reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials in livestock and food safety: explanation and elaboration. J Food Prot 2010;73:579603.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Baulig C, Krummenauer F, Geis B, et al. Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts on age-related macular degeneration health care: a cross-sectional quantification of the adherence to CONSORT abstract reporting recommendations. BMJ Open 2018;8:e021912.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Ghimire S, Kyung E, Lee H, et al. Oncology trial abstracts showed suboptimal improvement in reporting: a comparative before-and-after evaluation using CONSORT for Abstract guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:658666.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Hua F, Walsh T, Glenny AM, et al. Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:584592.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Faggion CM, Giannakopoulos NN. Quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading journals of periodontology and implant dentistry: a survey. J Periodontol 2012;83:12511256.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement