Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in the seven highest-ranking anesthesiology journals

• Main Authors: Katja Janackovic, Livia Puljak
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2018-10-01
• Series: Trials
• Subjects: Randomized controlled trial; Checklist; Anesthesiology; Abstracts; Reporting; Completeness
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13063-018-2976-x

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to assess adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) in the highest-impact anesthesiology journals. Methods This was a descriptive, cross-sectional, methodological study. We analyzed whether abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the highest-impact anesthesiology journals between 2014 and 2016 adhered with CONSORT-A. RCT abstracts published in the seven first-quartile journals in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) category Anesthesiology were analyzed. The primary outcome was adherence to the 17-item CONSORT-A checklist. Secondary outcomes were adherence to individual checklist items and adherence with the checklist across the individual journals. Results Search results yielded 688 records, of which 622 abstracts were analyzed. Analysis of the total score of the CONSORT-A checklist indicated a per-article median of 41% (interquartile range 35–53%). The European Journal of Anesthesiology had the highest overall adherence rate (53%), whereas Anaesthesia had the lowest (32%). The lowest adherence was observed for the following items: Trial design (18%), Contact of the authors as an e-mail address of the corresponding author (16%), Recruitment status (9%), Number of participants analyzed (8%), Randomization (3%), and Funding (0.2%). Conclusions RCT abstracts published in top anesthesiology journals are poorly reported, providing insufficient information to readers. Interventions are needed to increase adherence to relevant reporting checklists for writing RCT abstracts.