Reporting Quality of Controlled-trial Abstracts from Chicken Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2018.431.442Keywords:
Abstracts, chickens research, CONSORT, randomized controlled trials, reporting qualityAbstract
Background and Objective: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs are typically used for evaluating treatment effects in chicken research. The abstract is an important part of scientific reports that readers usually read first and then decide whether to read the entire article, so the information provided in the abstract should be adequate. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts checklist has been developed and used as a guideline to help authors prepare their manuscripts. This checklist has also been used as a tool to evaluate published abstracts. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of reporting in abstracts of trials reporting randomization in their abstracts (RCT-A) and trials not reporting randomization in their abstracts (non-RCT-A) from chicken research and to identify the factors associated with reporting quality. Materials and Methods: PubMed was searched for abstracts of controlled trials involving chicken research published between 2006 and 2015. The abstracts were evaluated using the modified CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The primary outcome was a median Overall Quality Score (OQS), which for each abstract was a sum of items recommended in the modified checklist. Some pre-specified factors were also evaluated for their association with reporting quality using simple and multiple ordinal logistic regression analyses. Results: A total of 949 abstracts (n = 262 for RCT-A and n = 687 for non-RCT-A) were included and evaluated. The OQS was significantly higher for RCT-A than non-RCT-A (median (interquartile range), 7.0 (6.0-7.0) vs 3.0 (3.0-4.0); p<0.001) but both median scores were still less than half of the maximum score of 15. The two most frequently reported items (>80%) were the objective and conclusions. Trial design, participants and interventions were adequately reported only in RCT-A. In contrast, identifying the study as a randomized trial in the title and including a clearly defined primary outcome, blinding, numbers analyzed, estimated effect size and its precision for the primary outcome, trial registration and funding in the abstracts were not reported or were reported in <5% of all abstracts. Four factors-year of publication, number of trials reported, number of experimental groups reported and sample size reported were associated with OQS. That is, abstracts with higher OQSs were published more recently, reported a single trial rather than multiple trials, reported the number of experimental groups and reported the sample size. These factors explained about 39.4% of the variance of OQS. Conclusion: The reporting qualities of both RCT-A and non-RCT-A from chicken research were suboptimal. Efforts should therefore be made to improve the transparency, completeness and detail of reporting in controlled-trial abstracts from chicken research, especially the development of specific guidelines based on the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist.
References
Altman, D.G., K.F. Schulz, D. Moher, M. Egger and F. Davidoff et al., 2001. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann. Internet Med., 134: 663-694.
Begg, C., M. Cho, S. Eastwood, R. Horton and D. Moher et al., 1996. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 276: 637-639.
Moher, D., S. Hopewell, K.F. Schulz, V. Montori and P.C. Gotzsche et al., 2010. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Br. Med. J., Vol. 340.
Vohra, S., L. Shamseer, M. Sampson, C. Bukutu and C.H. Schmid et al., 2015. CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 76: 9-17.
Hopewell, S., M. Clarke, D. Moher, E. Wager and P. Middleton et al., 2008. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med., Vol. 5.
Chhapola, V., S. Tiwari, R. Brar and S.K. Kanwal, 2016. An interrupted time series analysis showed suboptimal improvement in reporting quality of trial abstract. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 71: 11-17.
Cui, Q., J. Tian, X. Song and K. Yang, 2014. Does the CONSORT checklist for abstracts improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials on clinical pathways? J. Eval. Clin. Pract., 20: 827-833.
Fleming, P.S., N. Buckley, J. Seehra, A. Polychronopoulou and N. Pandis, 2012. Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011. Am. J. Orthodont. Dentofac. Orthoped., 142: 451-458.
Ghimire, S., E. Kyung, H. Lee and E. Kim, 2014. Oncology trial abstracts showed suboptimal improvement in reporting: A comparative before-and-after evaluation using CONSORT for abstract guidelines. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 67: 658-666.
Guo, J.W. and S.J. Iribarren, 2014. Reporting quality for abstracts of randomized controlled trials in cancer nursing research. Cancer Nurs., 37: 436-444.
Hua, F., L. Deng, C.H. Kau, H. Jiang, H. He and T. Walsh, 2015. Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts: Survey of leading general dental journals. J. Am. Dent. Assoc., 146: 669-678.
Mbuagbaw, L., M. Thabane, T. Vanniyasingam, V.B. Debono and S. Kosa et al., 2014. Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: A systematic review. Contemp. Clin. Trials, 38: 245-250.
Berwanger, O., R.A. Ribeiro, A. Finkelsztejn, M. Watanabe and E.A. Suzumura et al., 2009. The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: Survey of major general medical journals. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 62: 387-392.
Ghimire, S., E. Kyung, W. Kang and E. Kim, 2012. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials, Vol. 13.
Kiriakou, J., N. Pandis, P. Madianos and A. Polychronopoulou, 2014. Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract., 14: 9-15.
Seehra, J., N.S. Wright, A. Polychronopoulou, M.T. Cobourne and N. Pandis, 2013. Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in dental specialty journals. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract., 13: 1-8.
O'Connor, A.M., J.M. Sargeant, I.A. Gardner, J.S. Dickson and M.E. Torrence et al., 2010. The REFLECT statement: Methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety. Prev. Vet. Med., 93: 11-18.
Sargeant, J.M., A.M. O'Connor, I.A. Gardner, J.S. Dickson and M.E. Torrence et al., 2010. The reflect statement: Reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials in livestock and food safety: Explanation and elaboration. J. Food Protect., 73: 579-603.
Sargeant, J.M., R. Elgie, J. Valcour, J. Saint-Onge, A. Thompson, P. Marcynuk and K. Snedeker, 2009. Methodological quality and completeness of reporting in clinical trials conducted in livestock species. Prev. Vet. Med., 91: 107-115.
Snedeker, K.G., P. Canning, S.C. Totton and J.M. Sargeant, 2012. Completeness of reporting in abstracts from clinical trials of pre-harvest interventions against foodborne pathogens. Prev. Vet. Med., 104: 15-22.
Landis, R.J. and G.G. Koch, 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33: 159-174.
Viera, A.J. and J.M. Garrett, 2005. Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Med. J., 37: 360-363.
Huwiler-Muntener, K., P. Juni, C. Junker and M. Egger, 2002. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 287: 2801-2804.
Dirnagl, U. and M. Lauritzen, 2010. Fighting publication bias: Introducing the negative results section. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab., 30: 1263-1264.
De Angelis, C., J.M. Drazen, F.A. Frizelle, C. Haug and J. Hoey et al., 2004. Clinical trial registration: A statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. N. Engl. J. Med., 351: 1250-1251.
Perel, P., I. Roberts, E. Sena, P. Wheble and C. Briscoe et al., 2007. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. Br. Med. J., Vol. 334.
Liu, X.T., X. Zhang, S. Wen, L. Peng, Q. Hong and D. Kang, 2015. Impact of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist on reporting of randomized clinical trials in traditional Chinese medicine. J. Evid. Based Med., 8: 192-208.
Turner, L., L. Shamseer, D.G. Altman, K.F. Schulz and D. Moher, 2012. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst. Rev., Vol. 1.
Kilkenny, C., W.J. Browne, I.C. Cuthill, M. Emerson and D.G. Altman, 2010. Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol., Vol. 8.
Baker, D., K. Lidster, A. Sottomayor and S. Amor, 2014. Two years later: Journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies. PLoS Biol., Vol. 12.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
