Affiliation:
1. From the Department of Medical Oncology and the Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the quality of reporting in abstracts describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the Proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meetings and to propose reporting guidelines for abstracts that are submitted to future meetings. Methods Guidelines for reporting of RCTs in abstracts were developed by extracting key elements from published guidelines for full reports of RCTs, and modified based on an expert survey. Abstracts presenting results of RCTs with sample size ≥ 200 were identified from the ASCO Proceedings for the years 1989 to 1998. Information regarding the quality of each abstract was extracted, and a quality score (possible range, 0 to 10) was assigned based on adherence to the guidelines. Results Brief description of the intervention, explicit identification of the primary end point, and presentation of results accompanied by statistical tests were regarded by experts as the most important items to include in an abstract, whereas presentation of secondary and subgroup analyses was the least important. Deficiencies in reporting were present in almost all of the 510 abstracts; for example, only 22% of the abstracts provided explicit identification of the primary end point. The median quality score was 5.5 (range, 2.0 to 8.5); the quality score improved with time (P < .0001) and was better for oral or plenary presentations (P = .0003). Conclusion The quality of reporting of RCTs in abstracts submitted to Annual Meetings of ASCO is suboptimal. Although space precludes the inclusion of details required in the final report, abstracts could be improved through the use of explicit minimal guidelines, which are suggested in this article.
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Reference28 articles.
1. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects
2. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, et al: Time to publication for results of clinical trials (Cochrane Methodology Review), in: The Cochrane Library . Oxford, UK, Update Software, issue 4, 2002
3. Scherer RW, Langenberg P: Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (Cochrane Methodology Review), in: The Cochrane Library . Oxford, UK, Update Software, issue 4, 2002
4. Factors Associated With Failure to Publish Large Randomized Trials Presented at an Oncology Meeting
5. Call for Comments on a Proposal To Improve Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature
Cited by
47 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献