Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:27:57.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality of trials reported as conference abstracts in China: How well are they reported?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2009

Yurong Duan ,
Jing Li ,
Changlin Ai ,
Yaolong Chen ,
Peixian Chen ,
Mingming Zhang  and
Sally Hopewell
Yurong Duan
Affiliation:
West China Hospital, Sichuan University
Jing Li
Affiliation:
West China Hospital, Sichuan University
Changlin Ai
Affiliation:
West China Hospital, Sichuan University
Yaolong Chen
Affiliation:
West China Hospital, Sichuan University
Peixian Chen
Affiliation:
West China Hospital, Sichuan University
Mingming Zhang*
Affiliation:
West China Hospital, Sichuan University
Sally Hopewell
Affiliation:
UK Cochrane Centre
*
Reprint requests and correspondence to Prof. Zhang.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Clear, transparent, and sufficiently detailed abstracts of journal articles and conference abstracts are important because readers often base their assessment of a trial on such information. There are concerns over the reliability and quality of trials published only in the proceedings of scientific meetings. This study aims to assess the reporting quality of abstracts of randomized trials published in Chinese medical conference abstracts.

Methods: Conference abstracts reporting randomized trials included in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) in 2007 were identified. A revised checklist (based on the CONSORT extension for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts) was used to assess the reporting quality of these conference abstracts.

Results: A total of 567 conference abstracts of randomized trials were identified. Some aspects were well reported, including 94 percent of authors contact details, 83 percent of trial interventions and 78 percent of control interventions, 62 percent of participant eligibility criteria, and 66 percent the number of participants randomized to each group. Other areas were very poorly reported: only 1 percent identified the study as randomized in the abstract title, 2 percent reported the trial design, and only 7 percent reported on blinding. No details of allocation concealment, trial registration, or funding were reported.

Conclusion: The information given for trials in conference proceedings in China is very poor, especially in some aspects of methodological quality, trial registration, and funding source. The quality of conference abstracts for trials should be improved to further facilitate understanding of their conduct and validity.

Keywords

Medical conferencesCONSORT for AbstractsRandomized controlled trialsQuality of reporting
Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 479 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Abaid, LN, Grimes, DA, Schulz, KF. Reducing publication bias of prospective clinical trials through trial registration. Contraception. 2007;76:339–341.Google Scholar
2. 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;62:387–392.Google Scholar
3. Bhandari, M, Devereaux, PJ, Guyatt, GH, et al. An observational study of orthopedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:615–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Bian, ZX, Moher, D, Dagenais, S, et al. Improving the quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine, part IV: Applying a revised CONSORT checklist to measure reporting quality. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2006;4:233–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Chang, J, Li, TQ, Wan, MH, et al. Quality assessment for randomized controlled trials published in four acta of traditional Chinese medicine. Chin J Evid-based Med. 2006;6:171–178Google Scholar
6. China Academic Journals Full-text Database. 2009. http://lsg.cnki.net/grid20/Navigator.aspx?id=1 (accessed March 20, 2009).Google Scholar
7. China and India join WHO clinical trial registry platform. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr41/en/index.html (accessed April 20, 2009).Google Scholar
8. Gourgoulianis, K, Panagakis, A, Tsakraklides, V. Anatomy of the IXth European Congress of Pathology abstracts. Pathol Res Pract. 1985;180:246–247.Google Scholar
9. Herbison, P. The reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials submitted to the ICS meeting in Heidelberg. Neurourol Urodyn. 2005;24:21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hill, CL, Buchbinder, R, Osborne, R. Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in abstracts of the 2005 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:2476–2480.Google Scholar
11. Hopewell, S, Clarke, M. Abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference: How completely are trials reported? Clin Trials. 2005;2:265–268.Google Scholar
12. Hopewell, S, Clarke, M, Askie, L. Reporting of trials presented in conference abstracts needs to be improved. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:681–684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Hopewell, S, Clarke, M, Moher, D, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e20.Google Scholar
14. Hopewell, S, McDonald, S, Clarke, M, et al. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000010.Google Scholar
15. Krzyzanowska, MK, Pintilie, M, Tannock, IF. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA. 2003;290:495–501.Google Scholar
16. Panush, RS, Delafuente, JC, Connelly, CS, et al. Profile of a meeting: How abstracts are written and reviewed. J Rheumatol. 1989;16:145–147.Google Scholar
17. Robinson, KA, Dickersin, K. Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:150–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Scherer, RW, Dickersin, K, Langenberg, P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1994;272:158–162.Google Scholar
19. Scherer, RW, Langenberg, P, Von Elm, E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000005.Google Scholar
20. Waxman, BP, Dudley, HA. A critical assessment of the submitted abstracts for the 1982 winter meeting of the surgical research society. Br J Surg. 1983;70:182.Google Scholar
21. Xu, L, Li, J, Zhang, MM, et al. Chinese authors do need CONSORT: Reporting quality assessment for five leading Chinese medical journals. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29:727–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Zhang, XL, Li, J, Zhang, MM, et al. Assessing the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on acupuncture for acute ischemic stroke using the CONSORT statement and STRICTA. Chin J Evid-based Med. 2006;6:586–590.Google Scholar
23. Zhang, Y, Li, F, Sun, D. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. Chin J Evid-based Med. 2005;5:400–403.Google Scholar
24. Zhang, Y, Zhang, RM, Chang, J, et al. Quality assessment of the report of randomized controlled trials on treatment of liver carcinoma with traditional Chinese medicine. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2008;28:588–590.Google Scholar