Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals

Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, Asim Shaikh, Rohan Kumar Ochani, Tauseef Akhtar, Kaneez Fatima, Safi U. Khan, Farouk Mookadam, Mohammad H Murad, Vincent M. Figueredo, Rami Doukky, Richard A. Krasuski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the busy world of cardiovascular medicine, abstracts may be the only part of a publication that clinicians read. Therefore, it is critical for abstracts to accurately reflect article content. The extended CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement for Abstracts was developed to ensure high abstract quality. However, it is unknown how often adherence to CONSORT guidelines occurs among cardiovascular journals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials published in 3 major cardiovascular journals ( Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and European Heart Journal) from 2011 to 2017. Post hoc, interim, and cost-effective analyses of randomized controlled trials were excluded. Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified data collection form and a third investigator adjudicated the data. The primary outcome was frequency of subcategory adherence to CONSORT guidelines. A total of 478 abstracts were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the abstracts (53%; 255/478; 95% CI, 49%-57%) identified the article as randomized in the title. All abstracts detailed the interventions for both study groups (100%) and 81% (95% CI, 78%-85%) reported trial registration. Methodological quality reporting was relatively low: 9% (45/478; 95% CI, 6%-12%) described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection, 43% (204/478; 95% CI, 39%-47%) reported details of blinding, and <1% (4/478; 95% CI, 0%-2%) reported allocation concealment. Approximately 60% (301/478; 95% CI, 59%-67%) of the included abstracts provided primary outcome results while 55% (262/478; 95% CI, 51%-60%) reported harms or adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of nonadherence to CONSORT guidelines among leading cardiovascular journals. Efforts by editors, authors, and reviewers should be made to increase adherence and promote transparent and unbiased presentation of study results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e005260
JournalCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes
Volume12
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2019
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Guidelines
Research Personnel
MEDLINE
Publications
Medicine
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • cardiology
  • medicine
  • prevalence
  • publications
  • randomized controlled trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals. / Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb; Shaikh, Asim; Ochani, Rohan Kumar; Akhtar, Tauseef; Fatima, Kaneez; Khan, Safi U.; Mookadam, Farouk; Murad, Mohammad H; Figueredo, Vincent M.; Doukky, Rami; Krasuski, Richard A.

In: Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, Vol. 12, No. 5, 01.05.2019, p. e005260.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Khan, MS, Shaikh, A, Ochani, RK, Akhtar, T, Fatima, K, Khan, SU, Mookadam, F, Murad, MH, Figueredo, VM, Doukky, R & Krasuski, RA 2019, 'Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals', Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. e005260. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005260
Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb ; Shaikh, Asim ; Ochani, Rohan Kumar ; Akhtar, Tauseef ; Fatima, Kaneez ; Khan, Safi U. ; Mookadam, Farouk ; Murad, Mohammad H ; Figueredo, Vincent M. ; Doukky, Rami ; Krasuski, Richard A. / Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals. In: Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes. 2019 ; Vol. 12, No. 5. pp. e005260.
@article{91bcf44ddb884e1995b806f6b8f646a8,
title = "Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: In the busy world of cardiovascular medicine, abstracts may be the only part of a publication that clinicians read. Therefore, it is critical for abstracts to accurately reflect article content. The extended CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement for Abstracts was developed to ensure high abstract quality. However, it is unknown how often adherence to CONSORT guidelines occurs among cardiovascular journals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials published in 3 major cardiovascular journals ( Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and European Heart Journal) from 2011 to 2017. Post hoc, interim, and cost-effective analyses of randomized controlled trials were excluded. Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified data collection form and a third investigator adjudicated the data. The primary outcome was frequency of subcategory adherence to CONSORT guidelines. A total of 478 abstracts were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the abstracts (53{\%}; 255/478; 95{\%} CI, 49{\%}-57{\%}) identified the article as randomized in the title. All abstracts detailed the interventions for both study groups (100{\%}) and 81{\%} (95{\%} CI, 78{\%}-85{\%}) reported trial registration. Methodological quality reporting was relatively low: 9{\%} (45/478; 95{\%} CI, 6{\%}-12{\%}) described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection, 43{\%} (204/478; 95{\%} CI, 39{\%}-47{\%}) reported details of blinding, and <1{\%} (4/478; 95{\%} CI, 0{\%}-2{\%}) reported allocation concealment. Approximately 60{\%} (301/478; 95{\%} CI, 59{\%}-67{\%}) of the included abstracts provided primary outcome results while 55{\%} (262/478; 95{\%} CI, 51{\%}-60{\%}) reported harms or adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of nonadherence to CONSORT guidelines among leading cardiovascular journals. Efforts by editors, authors, and reviewers should be made to increase adherence and promote transparent and unbiased presentation of study results.",
keywords = "cardiology, medicine, prevalence, publications, randomized controlled trials",
author = "Khan, {Muhammad Shahzeb} and Asim Shaikh and Ochani, {Rohan Kumar} and Tauseef Akhtar and Kaneez Fatima and Khan, {Safi U.} and Farouk Mookadam and Murad, {Mohammad H} and Figueredo, {Vincent M.} and Rami Doukky and Krasuski, {Richard A.}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005260",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "e005260",
journal = "Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes",
issn = "1941-7713",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals

AU - Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb

AU - Shaikh, Asim

AU - Ochani, Rohan Kumar

AU - Akhtar, Tauseef

AU - Fatima, Kaneez

AU - Khan, Safi U.

AU - Mookadam, Farouk

AU - Murad, Mohammad H

AU - Figueredo, Vincent M.

AU - Doukky, Rami

AU - Krasuski, Richard A.

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: In the busy world of cardiovascular medicine, abstracts may be the only part of a publication that clinicians read. Therefore, it is critical for abstracts to accurately reflect article content. The extended CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement for Abstracts was developed to ensure high abstract quality. However, it is unknown how often adherence to CONSORT guidelines occurs among cardiovascular journals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials published in 3 major cardiovascular journals ( Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and European Heart Journal) from 2011 to 2017. Post hoc, interim, and cost-effective analyses of randomized controlled trials were excluded. Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified data collection form and a third investigator adjudicated the data. The primary outcome was frequency of subcategory adherence to CONSORT guidelines. A total of 478 abstracts were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the abstracts (53%; 255/478; 95% CI, 49%-57%) identified the article as randomized in the title. All abstracts detailed the interventions for both study groups (100%) and 81% (95% CI, 78%-85%) reported trial registration. Methodological quality reporting was relatively low: 9% (45/478; 95% CI, 6%-12%) described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection, 43% (204/478; 95% CI, 39%-47%) reported details of blinding, and <1% (4/478; 95% CI, 0%-2%) reported allocation concealment. Approximately 60% (301/478; 95% CI, 59%-67%) of the included abstracts provided primary outcome results while 55% (262/478; 95% CI, 51%-60%) reported harms or adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of nonadherence to CONSORT guidelines among leading cardiovascular journals. Efforts by editors, authors, and reviewers should be made to increase adherence and promote transparent and unbiased presentation of study results.

AB - BACKGROUND: In the busy world of cardiovascular medicine, abstracts may be the only part of a publication that clinicians read. Therefore, it is critical for abstracts to accurately reflect article content. The extended CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement for Abstracts was developed to ensure high abstract quality. However, it is unknown how often adherence to CONSORT guidelines occurs among cardiovascular journals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials published in 3 major cardiovascular journals ( Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and European Heart Journal) from 2011 to 2017. Post hoc, interim, and cost-effective analyses of randomized controlled trials were excluded. Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified data collection form and a third investigator adjudicated the data. The primary outcome was frequency of subcategory adherence to CONSORT guidelines. A total of 478 abstracts were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the abstracts (53%; 255/478; 95% CI, 49%-57%) identified the article as randomized in the title. All abstracts detailed the interventions for both study groups (100%) and 81% (95% CI, 78%-85%) reported trial registration. Methodological quality reporting was relatively low: 9% (45/478; 95% CI, 6%-12%) described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection, 43% (204/478; 95% CI, 39%-47%) reported details of blinding, and <1% (4/478; 95% CI, 0%-2%) reported allocation concealment. Approximately 60% (301/478; 95% CI, 59%-67%) of the included abstracts provided primary outcome results while 55% (262/478; 95% CI, 51%-60%) reported harms or adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of nonadherence to CONSORT guidelines among leading cardiovascular journals. Efforts by editors, authors, and reviewers should be made to increase adherence and promote transparent and unbiased presentation of study results.

KW - cardiology

KW - medicine

KW - prevalence

KW - publications

KW - randomized controlled trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065403815&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065403815&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005260

DO - 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005260

M3 - Article

C2 - 31030545

AN - SCOPUS:85065403815

VL - 12

SP - e005260

JO - Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

JF - Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

SN - 1941-7713

IS - 5

ER -