IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0011926.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Quality of Reporting in Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Five Leading Chinese Medical Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Yaolong Chen
  • Jing Li
  • Changlin Ai
  • Yurong Duan
  • Ling Wang
  • Mingming Zhang
  • Sally Hopewell

Abstract

Background: 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. However, little is known about the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in medical journals in China. Methods: We 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. Results: We 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. Conclusions: The 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 Abstracts guidelines by journals reporting RCTs will lead to improvements in the quality of reporting.

Suggested Citation

  • Yaolong Chen & Jing Li & Changlin Ai & Yurong Duan & Ling Wang & Mingming Zhang & Sally Hopewell, 2010. "Assessment of the Quality of Reporting in Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Five Leading Chinese Medical Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-5, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0011926
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011926
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011926
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011926&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0011926?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sally Hopewell & Mike Clarke & David Moher & Elizabeth Wager & Philippa Middleton & Douglas G Altman & Kenneth F Schulz & and the CONSORT Group, 2008. "CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hugh MacPherson & Douglas G Altman & Richard Hammerschlag & Li Youping & Wu Taixiang & Adrian White & David Moher & on behalf of the STRICTA Revision Group, 2010. "Revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA): Extending the CONSORT Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-11, June.
    2. Sylvain Mathieu & An-Wen Chan & Philippe Ravaud, 2013. "Use of Trial Register Information during the Peer Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-4, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0011926. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.