Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in abstracts of the 2005 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Hill, Catherine, Buchbinder, Rachelle and Osborne, Richard 2007, Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in abstracts of the 2005 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology., Journal of rheumatology, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 2476-2480.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in abstracts of the 2005 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Author(s) Hill, Catherine
Buchbinder, Rachelle
Osborne, Richard
Journal name Journal of rheumatology
Volume number 34
Issue number 12
Start page 2476
End page 2480
Publisher Journal of Rheumatology Pub. Co.
Place of publication Toronto, Canada
Publication date 2007
ISSN 0315-162X
1499-2752
Summary Objective: To determine the quality of abstracts reporting randomized clinical trials (RCT) at the 2005 Annual Scientific Meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Methods:
All 2005 abstracts including late-breaking abstracts were assessed. An abstract was deemed to be reporting an RCT if it indicated that participants were randomized in the title or body of the abstract. RCT were excluded if they included only pharmacokinetic data. The CONSORT checklist was applied and relevant data extracted. We defined manufacturer support as acknowledgment of industry support or industry employee as co-author.

Results: Of 2146 abstracts, 143 (6.7%) reported RCT. Of these, 78.3% were drug trials, and 63.6% indicated manufacturer support. Only 30.8% of abstracts used "randomized" in the title, 44.1% did not explicitly state whether blinding was undertaken, and only 7.0% clearly stated who was blinded. Thirty percent of studies did not give an explicit definition of eligibility criteria of participants. While 84.6% explicitly described the experimental intervention, only 37.1% explicitly described the comparator intervention. Only 21% explicitly stated that an intention to treat analysis was performed. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were reported in 48.3%. While most abstracts reported summary results for each treatment group, only 35.7% reported effect size with its precision.

Conclusion:
The quality of reporting is suboptimal in many RCT abstracts. Abstracts reporting RCT would benefit from a structured approach that ensures more detailed reporting of eligibility criteria, active and comparator interventions, flow of participants, and adequate summary and precision of results.
Language eng
Field of Research 110399 Clinical Sciences not elsewhere classified
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30019406

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Health and Social Development
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 14 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 17 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 345 Abstract Views, 0 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 14 Sep 2009, 10:00:16 EST by Lorraine Driscoll

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.