Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Aug 2;5(8):e11926.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011926.

Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals

Yaolong Chen  1 , Jing Li, Changlin Ai, Yurong Duan, Ling Wang, Mingming Zhang, Sally Hopewell
Affiliations

Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals

Yaolong Chen et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized trials (RCTs), published in journal articles are important because readers will often base their initial assessment of a trial on such information. However, little is known about the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in medical journals in China.

Methods: We identified RCTs abstracts from 5 five leading Chinese medical journals published between 1998 and 2007 and indexed in MEDLINE. We assessed the quality of reporting of these abstracts based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) abstract checklist. We also sought to identify whether any differences exist in reporting between the Chinese and English language version of the same abstract.

Results: We identified 332 RCT abstracts eligible for examination. Overall, the abstracts we examined reported 0-8 items as designated in the CONSORT checklist. On average, three items were reported per abstract. Details of the interventions (288/332; 87%), the number of participants randomized (216/332; 65%) and study objectives (109/332; 33%) were the top three items reported. Only two RCT abstracts reported details of trial registration, no abstracts reported the method of allocation concealment and only one mentioned specifically who was blinded. In terms of the proportion of RCT abstracts fulfilling a criterion, the absolute difference (percentage points) between the Chinese and English abstracts was 10% (ranging from 0 to 25%) on average, per item.

Conclusions: The quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in Chinese medical journals needs to be improved. We hope that the introduction and endorsement of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines by journals reporting RCTs will lead to improvements in the quality of reporting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Identification of RCT abstracts from the Chinese Biomedical Database.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Du YX, Lei CB, Chen JQ, Zhang XM, Zhang Y, et al. A comparative study of the literature included in the five authoritative domestic databases of Chinese biomedical journals. J Prev Med Inf. 2006;22:162–165.
    1. Hopewell S, Eisinga A, Clarke M. Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts. J Inf Sci. 2008;34:162–173.
    1. Dupuy A, Khosrotehrani K, Lebbe C, Rybojad M, Morel P. Quality of abstracts in 3 clinical dermatology journals. Arch Dermatol. 2003;139:589–593. - PubMed
    1. Burns KE, Adhikari NK, Kho M, Meade MO, Patel RV, et al. Abstract reporting in randomized clinical trials of acute lung injury: an audit and assessment of a quality of reporting score. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1937–1945. - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed