 |
|
Reporting of Randomized Clinical Trial Descriptors and Use of Structured Abstracts
Roberta W. Scherer, PhD;
Barbara Crawley, MS
JAMA. 1998;280:269-272.
Context.— Structured abstracts, that is, abstracts that describe a study using requisite content headings, provide more informative content. Concomitant reporting in the text of the report might improve with structured abstract use because of increased awareness by authors or editors of important study areas associated with content headings.
Objective.— To assess whether structured abstract use is associated with improved reporting of randomized clinical trials.
Design and Setting.— Survey of trial reports published the year preceding, of, and following new use of structured abstracts, found by hand searching Archives of Ophthalmology (1992-1994) and Ophthalmology (1991-1993), as well as trial reports published concurrently without change in abstract format (American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1991-1994).
Main Outcome Measures.— We measured the inclusion of 56 criteria derived from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) descriptors (JAMA 1996;276:637-639) in the text of each report and calculated the number of criteria included per report and the proportion of reports including individual criteria. Reports with structured abstracts were compared with those without, and reports published in 1993 and 1994 in the American Journal of Ophthalmology were compared with those published in 1991 and 1992.
Results.— The mean (SEM) number of criteria included by authors was 15.8 (0.4) per report in 125 trial reports. We found no difference in the mean number of criteria included or the proportion of reports that included specific criteria by journal. Following structured abstract use, there was no difference in either the mean number of criteria per report or the proportion of reports including a majority of criteria within each CONSORT subheading. Four criteria were included more often and 2 less often following structured abstract use in individual journals.
Conclusion.— Using CONSORT descriptor criteria to evaluate reporting quality, we found no difference in text reporting associated with structured abstract use in the journals examined.
From the Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTER
Evaluating Reporting and Abstracts of Clinical Trials
Rajnish Mago, Paul Crits-Christoph, Roberta W. Scherer, and Barbara Crawley
JAMA. 1999;281(1):34-35.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Structured abstracts: Do they improve citation retrieval from dental journals?
Stevenson and Harrison
J. Orthod. 2009;36:52-60.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts
Hopewell et al.
Journal of Information Science 2008;34:162-173.
ABSTRACT
Improving the Quality of Abstract Reporting for Phase I Cancer Trials
Strevel et al.
Clin. Cancer Res. 2008;14:1782-1787.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Extending the CONSORT Statement to Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment: Explanation and Elaboration
Boutron et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2008;148:295-309.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
How Evidence-Based Are Publications in Clinical Ophthalmic Journals?
Lai et al.
IOVS 2006;47:1831-1838.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Addressing the Limitations of Structured Abstracts
The Editors
ANN INTERN MED 2004;140:480-481.
FULL TEXT
Effects of Technical Editing in Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review
Wager and Middleton
JAMA 2002;287:2821-2824.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind?
Dickersin
Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:6-12.
FULL TEXT
Are structured abstracts more or less accurate than traditional ones? A study in the psychological literature
Hartley
Journal of Information Science 2000;26:273-277.
ABSTRACT
The CONSORT Statement: Will It Lead to Improved Reporting of Clinical Trials in Ophthalmology?
Hawkins
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:677-680.
FULL TEXT
Evaluating Reporting and Abstracts of Clinical Trials
Mago et al.
JAMA 1999;281:34-35.
FULL TEXT
Peer Review in Prague
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:214-215.
FULL TEXT
|
