Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals.

Conrad P Earnest,Yaolong Chen,Ling Wang,Sally Hopewell,Mingming Zhang,Changlin Ai,Jing Li,Yurong Duan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011926

Abstract

BackgroundClear, transparent and sufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized trials (RCTs), published in journal articles are important because readers will often base their initial assessment of a trial on such information. However, little is known about the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in medical journals in China.MethodsWe identified RCTs abstracts from 5 five leading Chinese medical journals published between 1998 and 2007 and indexed in MEDLINE. We assessed the quality of reporting of these abstracts based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) abstract checklist. We also sought to identify whether any differences exist in reporting between the Chinese and English language version of the same abstract.ResultsWe identified 332 RCT abstracts eligible for examination. Overall, the abstracts we examined reported 0–8 items as designated in the CONSORT checklist. On average, three items were reported per abstract. Details of the interventions (288/332; 87%), the number of participants randomized (216/332; 65%) and study objectives (109/332; 33%) were the top three items reported. Only two RCT abstracts reported details of trial registration, no abstracts reported the method of allocation concealment and only one mentioned specifically who was blinded. In terms of the proportion of RCT abstracts fulfilling a criterion, the absolute difference (percentage points) between the Chinese and English abstracts was 10% (ranging from 0 to 25%) on average, per item.ConclusionsThe quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in Chinese medical journals needs to be improved. We hope that the introduction and endorsement of the CONSORT for s guidelines by journals reporting RCTs will lead to improvements in the quality of reporting.

Highlights

There are more than 1200 biomedical journals in China [1], which publish thousands of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) each year
The aim of our study is to assess the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in five leading Chinese medical journals using the recent CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist for reporting abstracts of RCTs
Quality of reporting in Chinese abstracts We identified 692 abstracts of RCTs during our initial search and subsequently determined that 332 pairs were eligible for analysis based on our criteria of findings being reported both Chinese and English (Figure 1)

Summary

Introduction

There are more than 1200 biomedical journals in China [1], which publish thousands of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) each year. Transparent, and sufficiently detailed abstracts of RCTs are more important in China and other developing countries where researchers and health professionals often use an abstract to decide whether to seek more information about a trial; or may have access to the abstracts only [2]. The aim of our study is to assess the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in five leading Chinese medical journals using the recent CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist for reporting abstracts of RCTs. Clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized trials (RCTs), published in journal articles are important because readers will often base their initial assessment of a trial on such information.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion