Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study

Fang Hua; Qiao Sun; Tingting Zhao; Xiong Chen; Hong He

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029270

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study

BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 16;9(7):e029270. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029270.

Authors

Fang Hua^#^{1

2}, Qiao Sun^#³, Tingting Zhao³, Xiong Chen⁴, Hong He³

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Evidence-Based Stomatology, Hubei-MOST KLOS & KLOBM, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
² Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
³ Department of Orthodontics, Hubei-MOST KLOS & KLOBM, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
⁴ Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.

^# Contributed equally.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at a leading international conference in sleep medicine (the SLEEP Annual Meeting), and to investigate the association between potential predictors and the reporting quality of trial abstracts in this field.

Design: Cross-sectional, research on research study.

Methods: A handsearch of the 2016-2018 SLEEP Annual Meeting abstract books was carried out to identify abstracts describing RCTs. Quality of reporting was assessed with the original 17-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of reporting quality. In addition, risk ratios were used to analyse the adequate reporting rate of each quality item by type of intervention and funding status.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: The overall quality score (OQS, range 0-17) in accordance with the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (primary outcome), and the adequate reporting rate of each checklist item (secondary outcome).

Results: A total of 176 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OQS was 5.53 (95% CI 5.30 to 5.76). Only three quality items (objective, conclusions and funding) were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75%). None of the abstracts adequately reported authors, randomisation or outcome in the results section. According to the multivariable analysis, pharmacological interventions (p=0.018) and funding from the industry (p=0.025) were significantly associated with better reporting quality.

Conclusions: The reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at SLEEP Annual Meetings was suboptimal. Pharmacological intervention and funding from industry were significant predictors of better reporting quality. Joint efforts by authors and conference committees are needed to enhance the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at sleep medicine conferences, and thereby reduce relevant research waste in this field.

Keywords: congresses as topic; data reporting; randomized controlled trial as topic; sleep medicine specialty.