Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
by
Douglas, Kevin
, Callender, David
, Andrews, Mary
, O'Malley, Patrick G
, Hays, Meredith
, Wilson, Ramey
in
Abstracting and Indexing - standards
/ Agreements
/ Citation management software
/ Cross-Sectional Studies
/ Data analysis
/ Guideline Adherence - statistics & numerical data
/ Guidelines as Topic
/ Humans
/ Internal medicine
/ Journal Impact Factor
/ Medical Publishing and Peer Review
/ Medicine
/ Peer review
/ Peer Review, Research - standards
/ Periodicals as Topic - standards
/ Quality Control
/ Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
/ Studies
/ Trends
/ Validity
2016
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
by
Douglas, Kevin
, Callender, David
, Andrews, Mary
, O'Malley, Patrick G
, Hays, Meredith
, Wilson, Ramey
in
Abstracting and Indexing - standards
/ Agreements
/ Citation management software
/ Cross-Sectional Studies
/ Data analysis
/ Guideline Adherence - statistics & numerical data
/ Guidelines as Topic
/ Humans
/ Internal medicine
/ Journal Impact Factor
/ Medical Publishing and Peer Review
/ Medicine
/ Peer review
/ Peer Review, Research - standards
/ Periodicals as Topic - standards
/ Quality Control
/ Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
/ Studies
/ Trends
/ Validity
2016
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
by
Douglas, Kevin
, Callender, David
, Andrews, Mary
, O'Malley, Patrick G
, Hays, Meredith
, Wilson, Ramey
in
Abstracting and Indexing - standards
/ Agreements
/ Citation management software
/ Cross-Sectional Studies
/ Data analysis
/ Guideline Adherence - statistics & numerical data
/ Guidelines as Topic
/ Humans
/ Internal medicine
/ Journal Impact Factor
/ Medical Publishing and Peer Review
/ Medicine
/ Peer review
/ Peer Review, Research - standards
/ Periodicals as Topic - standards
/ Quality Control
/ Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
/ Studies
/ Trends
/ Validity
2016
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
Journal Article
Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
2016
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts by five high-impact general medical journals and to assess whether the quality of reporting was homogeneous across these journals.DesignThis is a descriptive, cross-sectional study.SettingRandomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in five high-impact general medical journals.ParticipantsWe used up to 100 RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2014 from each of the following journals: The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals IM), The Lancet, the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).Main outcomeThe primary outcome was per cent overall adherence to the 19-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Secondary outcomes included per cent adherence in checklist subcategories and assessing homogeneity of reporting quality across the individual journals.ResultsSearch results yielded 466 abstracts, 3 of which were later excluded as they were not RCTs. Analysis was performed on 463 abstracts (97 from NEJM, 66 from Annals IM, 100 from The Lancet, 100 from The BMJ, 100 from JAMA). Analysis of all scored items showed an overall adherence of 67% (95% CI 66% to 68%) to the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The Lancet had the highest overall adherence rate (78%; 95% CI 76% to 80%), whereas NEJM had the lowest (55%; 95% CI 53% to 57%). Adherence rates to 8 of the checklist items differed by >25% between journals.ConclusionsAmong the five highest impact general medical journals, there is variable and incomplete adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist of randomised trials, with substantial differences between individual journals. Lack of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist by high-impact medical journals impedes critical appraisal of important studies. We recommend diligent assessment of adherence to reporting guidelines by authors, reviewers and editors to promote transparency and unbiased reporting of abstracts.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group
Subject
Abstracting and Indexing - standards
/ Citation management software
/ Guideline Adherence - statistics & numerical data
/ Humans
/ Medical Publishing and Peer Review
/ Medicine
/ Peer Review, Research - standards
/ Periodicals as Topic - standards
/ Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
/ Studies
/ Trends
/ Validity
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.