Quality of Abstracts Reporting in Periodontal Randomized Controlled Trials: A Descriptive Analysis
The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts greatly impacts the way readers perceive interventional outcomes, influencing their scientific applicability. Recent data about the quality of periodontal RCT abstracts that have been published is lacking. Thus, the aim of this study is to...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_761_24 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841544113141317632 |
|---|---|
| author | Fahad Alharbi Khalid Gufran Muzammil M. Ahmed Rawda O. Alghabban Mohammad Meish Almohammadi Abdullah S. Almutairi |
| author_facet | Fahad Alharbi Khalid Gufran Muzammil M. Ahmed Rawda O. Alghabban Mohammad Meish Almohammadi Abdullah S. Almutairi |
| author_sort | Fahad Alharbi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts greatly impacts the way readers perceive interventional outcomes, influencing their scientific applicability. Recent data about the quality of periodontal RCT abstracts that have been published is lacking. Thus, the aim of this study is to assess the reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs published in periodontal journals in recent years. The study is descriptive and cross-sectional, surveying the abstracts of RCTs published in the Journal of Periodontology (JOP), Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JOCP), and Journal of Periodontal Research (JOPR) between 2018 and 2022. The assessment of reporting quality was performed employing the CONSORT criteria for abstracts of RCTs. The quantitative values for each item on the CONSORT checklist for all published RCT abstracts were derived by descriptive statistical techniques, including univariate analysis. Comparisons were drawn between the journals and the different variables included in the study. The investigation identified 176 RCTs (11.7%) out of a total of 1506 articles published in these three journals over a period of four years. The primary observation of this research is that the mean quality scores were a mere 52.36 ± 9.9 for all the published periodontal RCTs abstracts. JOCP obtained the highest quality scores (54.7 ± 10.5), followed by JOPR (52.4 ± 9.9) and JOP (49.1 ± 7.9). RCT abstracts from Europe had higher reporting quality, whereas those from Africa were the lowest. The trials carried out in mixed settings showed better quality in the reporting of abstracts compared to those conducted in university, private, or governmental settings. RCTs with more than six authors and statisticians involved showed higher quality scores. These results are not indicative of a substantial improvement when compared to previous years (2015–2018). Abstracts of RCTs reported are below par in the preeminent periodontology journals. There has been no discernible progress over the years, notably in terms of blinding, the randomization description, and the disclosure of potential harms. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-16097f54b6e8469aa013cf4ffec5cf8c |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0976-4879 0975-7406 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| spelling | doaj-art-16097f54b6e8469aa013cf4ffec5cf8c2025-01-12T14:19:26ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences0976-48790975-74062024-12-0116Suppl 4S3322S332810.4103/jpbs.jpbs_761_24Quality of Abstracts Reporting in Periodontal Randomized Controlled Trials: A Descriptive AnalysisFahad AlharbiKhalid GufranMuzammil M. AhmedRawda O. AlghabbanMohammad Meish AlmohammadiAbdullah S. AlmutairiThe quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts greatly impacts the way readers perceive interventional outcomes, influencing their scientific applicability. Recent data about the quality of periodontal RCT abstracts that have been published is lacking. Thus, the aim of this study is to assess the reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs published in periodontal journals in recent years. The study is descriptive and cross-sectional, surveying the abstracts of RCTs published in the Journal of Periodontology (JOP), Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JOCP), and Journal of Periodontal Research (JOPR) between 2018 and 2022. The assessment of reporting quality was performed employing the CONSORT criteria for abstracts of RCTs. The quantitative values for each item on the CONSORT checklist for all published RCT abstracts were derived by descriptive statistical techniques, including univariate analysis. Comparisons were drawn between the journals and the different variables included in the study. The investigation identified 176 RCTs (11.7%) out of a total of 1506 articles published in these three journals over a period of four years. The primary observation of this research is that the mean quality scores were a mere 52.36 ± 9.9 for all the published periodontal RCTs abstracts. JOCP obtained the highest quality scores (54.7 ± 10.5), followed by JOPR (52.4 ± 9.9) and JOP (49.1 ± 7.9). RCT abstracts from Europe had higher reporting quality, whereas those from Africa were the lowest. The trials carried out in mixed settings showed better quality in the reporting of abstracts compared to those conducted in university, private, or governmental settings. RCTs with more than six authors and statisticians involved showed higher quality scores. These results are not indicative of a substantial improvement when compared to previous years (2015–2018). Abstracts of RCTs reported are below par in the preeminent periodontology journals. There has been no discernible progress over the years, notably in terms of blinding, the randomization description, and the disclosure of potential harms.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_761_24abstractsconsortperiodontologyrctsscientific reporting |
| spellingShingle | Fahad Alharbi Khalid Gufran Muzammil M. Ahmed Rawda O. Alghabban Mohammad Meish Almohammadi Abdullah S. Almutairi Quality of Abstracts Reporting in Periodontal Randomized Controlled Trials: A Descriptive Analysis Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences abstracts consort periodontology rcts scientific reporting |
| title | Quality of Abstracts Reporting in Periodontal Randomized Controlled Trials: A Descriptive Analysis |
| title_full | Quality of Abstracts Reporting in Periodontal Randomized Controlled Trials: A Descriptive Analysis |
| title_fullStr | Quality of Abstracts Reporting in Periodontal Randomized Controlled Trials: A Descriptive Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Quality of Abstracts Reporting in Periodontal Randomized Controlled Trials: A Descriptive Analysis |
| title_short | Quality of Abstracts Reporting in Periodontal Randomized Controlled Trials: A Descriptive Analysis |
| title_sort | quality of abstracts reporting in periodontal randomized controlled trials a descriptive analysis |
| topic | abstracts consort periodontology rcts scientific reporting |
| url | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_761_24 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fahadalharbi qualityofabstractsreportinginperiodontalrandomizedcontrolledtrialsadescriptiveanalysis AT khalidgufran qualityofabstractsreportinginperiodontalrandomizedcontrolledtrialsadescriptiveanalysis AT muzammilmahmed qualityofabstractsreportinginperiodontalrandomizedcontrolledtrialsadescriptiveanalysis AT rawdaoalghabban qualityofabstractsreportinginperiodontalrandomizedcontrolledtrialsadescriptiveanalysis AT mohammadmeishalmohammadi qualityofabstractsreportinginperiodontalrandomizedcontrolledtrialsadescriptiveanalysis AT abdullahsalmutairi qualityofabstractsreportinginperiodontalrandomizedcontrolledtrialsadescriptiveanalysis |