IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0187807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in psychiatry: Adherence to CONSORT for abstracts: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Seung Yeon Song
  • Boyeon Kim
  • Inhye Kim
  • Sungeun Kim
  • Minjeong Kwon
  • Changsu Han
  • Eunyoung Kim

Abstract

Background: Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts is important as readers often make their first judgments based on the abstracts. This study aims to assess the reporting quality of psychiatry RCT abstracts published before and after the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) guidelines. Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted to identify psychiatric RCTs published during 2005–2007 (pre-CONSORT) and 2012–2014 (post-CONSORT). Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts using a 18-point overall quality score (OQS) based on the CONSORT-A guidelines. Linear regression analysis was conducted to analyze factors associated with reporting quality. Results: Among 1,927 relevant articles, 285 pre-CONSORT and 214 post-CONSORT psychiatric RCT abstracts were included for analysis. The mean OQS improved from 6.9 (range: 3–13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.7–7.2) to 8.2 (range: 4–16; 95% CI: 7.8–8.5) after the CONSORT-A guidelines. Despite improvement, methods of randomization, allocation concealment, and funding source remained to be insufficiently reported (

Suggested Citation

  • Seung Yeon Song & Boyeon Kim & Inhye Kim & Sungeun Kim & Minjeong Kwon & Changsu Han & Eunyoung Kim, 2017. "Assessing reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in psychiatry: Adherence to CONSORT for abstracts: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0187807
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187807
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187807&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0187807?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0187807. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.