Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research

Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study

Authors: Iva Jerčić Martinić-Cezar, Ana Marušić

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Open access (OA) journals are becoming a publication standard for health research, but it is not clear how they differ from traditional subscription journals in the quality of research reporting. We assessed the completeness of results reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in these journals.

Methods

We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Checklist for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) to assess the completeness of reporting in abstracts of parallel-design RCTs published in subscription journals (n = 149; New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Lancet) and OA journals (n = 119; BioMedCentral series, PLoS journals) in 2016 and 2017.

Results

Abstracts in subscription journals completely reported 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77–81%) of 16 CONSORT-A items, compared with 65% (95% CI, 63–67%) of these items in abstracts from OA journals (P < 0.001, chi-square test). The median number of completely reported CONSORT-A items was 13 (95% CI, 12–13) in subscription journal articles and 11 (95% CI, 10–11) in OA journal articles. Subscription journal articles had significantly more complete reporting than OA journal articles for nine CONSORT-A items and did not differ in reporting for items trial design, outcome, randomization, blinding (masking), recruitment, and conclusions. OA journals were better than subscription journals in reporting randomized study design in the title.

Conclusion

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in subscription medical journals have greater completeness of reporting than abstracts published in OA journals. OA journals should take appropriate measures to ensure that published articles contain adequate detail to facilitate understanding and quality appraisal of research reports about RCTs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observation studies, and the hierarchy of research design. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1887–92.CrossRef Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observation studies, and the hierarchy of research design. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1887–92.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.CrossRef Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet. 2008;371:281–3.CrossRef Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet. 2008;371:281–3.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Ghimire S, Kyung E, Kang W, et al. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials. 2012;13:77.CrossRef Ghimire S, Kyung E, Kang W, et al. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials. 2012;13:77.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Can OS, Yilmaz AA, Hasdogan M, et al. Has the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract reporting? A survey of four high-profile anaesthesia journals. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28:485–92.CrossRef Can OS, Yilmaz AA, Hasdogan M, et al. Has the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract reporting? A survey of four high-profile anaesthesia journals. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28:485–92.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Kuriyama A, Takahashi N, Nakayama T. Reporting of critical care trial abstracts: a comparison before and after the announcement of CONSORT guideline for abstracts. Trials. 2017;18:32.CrossRef Kuriyama A, Takahashi N, Nakayama T. Reporting of critical care trial abstracts: a comparison before and after the announcement of CONSORT guideline for abstracts. Trials. 2017;18:32.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Mbuagbaw L, Thabane M, Vanniyasingam T, et al. Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: a systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;38:245–50.CrossRef Mbuagbaw L, Thabane M, Vanniyasingam T, et al. Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: a systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;38:245–50.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Keiko K, Tomoko M, Keiko Y, et al. Remarkable growth of open access in the biomedical field: analysis of PubMed articles from 2006 to 2010. PLoS One. 2013;8:e60925.CrossRef Keiko K, Tomoko M, Keiko Y, et al. Remarkable growth of open access in the biomedical field: analysis of PubMed articles from 2006 to 2010. PLoS One. 2013;8:e60925.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Björk BC, Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Med. 2012;10:73.CrossRef Björk BC, Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Med. 2012;10:73.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Pastorino R, Milovanovic S, Stojanovic J, et al. Quality assessment of studies published in open access and subscription journals: results of a systematic evaluation. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0154217.CrossRef Pastorino R, Milovanovic S, Stojanovic J, et al. Quality assessment of studies published in open access and subscription journals: results of a systematic evaluation. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0154217.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Delamothe T, Smith R. Open access publishing takes off. BMJ. 2004;328:1–3.CrossRef Delamothe T, Smith R. Open access publishing takes off. BMJ. 2004;328:1–3.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Borrego Á, Anglada L. Faculty information behaviour in the electronic environment: attitudes towards searching, publishing and libraries. New Libr World. 2016;117:173–85.CrossRef Borrego Á, Anglada L. Faculty information behaviour in the electronic environment: attitudes towards searching, publishing and libraries. New Libr World. 2016;117:173–85.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. JAMA. 2001;285:437–43.CrossRef Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. JAMA. 2001;285:437–43.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference The impact of open access upon public health [editorial]. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e252. The impact of open access upon public health [editorial]. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e252.
17.
go back to reference Berwanger O, Ribeiro RA, Finkelsztejn A, et al. The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:387–92.CrossRef Berwanger O, Ribeiro RA, Finkelsztejn A, et al. The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:387–92.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Hopewell S, Eisinga A, Clarke M. Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts. J Info Sci. 2007;34:162–73.CrossRef Hopewell S, Eisinga A, Clarke M. Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts. J Info Sci. 2007;34:162–73.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA. 1999;281:1110–1.CrossRef Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA. 1999;281:1110–1.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Froom P, Froom J. Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:591–4.CrossRef Froom P, Froom J. Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:591–4.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Tang E, Ravaud P, Riveros C, et al. Comparison of serious adverse events posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in corresponding journal articles. BMC Med. 2015;13:189.CrossRef Tang E, Ravaud P, Riveros C, et al. Comparison of serious adverse events posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in corresponding journal articles. BMC Med. 2015;13:189.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Riveros C, Dechartres A, Perrodeau E, et al. Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001566.CrossRef Riveros C, Dechartres A, Perrodeau E, et al. Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001566.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, et al. Reporting bias in medical research – a narrative review. Trials. 2010;11:37.CrossRef McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, et al. Reporting bias in medical research – a narrative review. Trials. 2010;11:37.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue – cohort study. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000354.CrossRef Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue – cohort study. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000354.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Wager E, Middleton P. Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2821–4.CrossRef Wager E, Middleton P. Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2821–4.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, et al. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2015;13:221.CrossRef Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, et al. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2015;13:221.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Effectiveness of a journal intervention to improve abstract quality. JAMA. 2000;283:481.CrossRef Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Effectiveness of a journal intervention to improve abstract quality. JAMA. 2000;283:481.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Winker MA. The need for concrete improvement in abstract quality. JAMA. 1999;31(281):1129–30.CrossRef Winker MA. The need for concrete improvement in abstract quality. JAMA. 1999;31(281):1129–30.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study
Authors
Iva Jerčić Martinić-Cezar
Ana Marušić
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3781-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Trials 1/2019 Go to the issue