Quality of reporting according to the CONSORT, STROBE and Timmer instrument at the American Burn Association (ABA) annual meetings 2000 and 2008

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Peter M Vogt²  Hans O Rennekampff²  Uzung Yoon¹  Karsten Knobloch² 

[1] Department of Surgery, New York Hospital Queens, 56-45 Main Street, Flushing, N.Y. 11355, USA;Plastic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Burn Center, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany

关键词: abstract;    reporting quality;    timmer;    strobe;    consort;    evidence;    Burns;   

Others  :  1136935
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-11-161

 received in 2010-11-09, accepted in 2011-11-29,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

The quality of oral and poster conference presentations differ. We hypothesized that the quality of reporting is better in oral abstracts than in poster abstracts at the American Burn Association (ABA) conference meeting.

Methods

All 511 abstracts (2000: N = 259, 2008: N = 252) from the ABA annual meetings in year 2000 and 2008 were screened. RCT's and obervational studies were analyzed by two independent examiners regarding study design and quality of reporting for randomized-controlled trials (RCT) by CONSORT criteria, observational studies by the STROBE criteria and additionally the Timmer instrument.

Results

Overall, 13 RCT's in 2000 and 9 in 2008, 77 observational studies in 2000 and 98 in 2008 were identified. Of the presented abstracts, 5% (oral; 7%(n = 9) vs. poster; 3%(n = 4)) in 2000 and 4% ((oral; 5%(n = 7) vs. poster; 2%(n = 2)) in 2008 were randomized controlled trials. The amount of observational studies as well as experimental studies accepted for presentation was not significantly different between oral and poster in both years. Reporting quality of RCT was for oral vs. poster abstracts in 2000 (CONSORT; 7.2 ± 0.8 vs. 7 ± 0, p = 0.615, CI -0.72 to 1.16, Timmer; 7.8 ± 0.7 vs. 7.5 ± 0.6,) and 2008 (CONSORT; 7.2 ± 1.4 vs. 6.5 ± 1, Timmer; 9.7 ± 1.1 vs. 9.5 ± 0.7). While in 2000, oral and poster abstracts of observational studies were not significantly different for reporting quality according to STROBE (STROBE; 8.3 ± 1.7 vs. 8.9 ± 1.6, p = 0.977, CI -37.3 to 36.3, Timmer; 8.6 ± 1.5 vs. 8.5 ± 1.4, p = 0.712, CI -0.44 to 0.64), in 2008 oral observational abstracts were significantly better than posters (STROBE score; 9.4 ± 1.9 vs. 8.5 ± 2, p = 0.005, CI 0.28 to 1.54, Timmer; 9.4 ± 1.4 vs. 8.6 ± 1.7, p = 0.013, CI 0.32 to 1.28).

Conclusions

Poster abstract reporting quality at the American Burn Association annual meetings in 2000 and 2008 is not necessarily inferior to oral abstracts as far as study design and reporting quality of clinical trials are concerned. The primary hypothesis has to be rejected. However, endorsement for the comprehensive use of the CONSORT and STROBE criteria might further increase the quality of reporting ABA conference abstracts in the future.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Knobloch et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Winker MA: The need for concrete improvement in abstract quality. JAMA 1999, 281:1129-1130.
• [2]Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996, 276:637-639.
• [3]Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG: The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001, 357:1191-1194.
• [4]Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, Schulz KF, CONSORT Group: CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2008, 22:e20.
• [5]von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP: STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:344-349.
• [6]Timmer A, Sutherland LR, Hilsden RJ: Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003, 3:2. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, Schulz KF, CONSORT group: CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet 2008, 371:281-283.
• [8]Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S: Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995, 16:62-73.
• [9]Momeni A, Becker A, Antes G, Diener MK, Blümle A, Stark BG: Evidence-based plastic surgery: controlled trials in three plastic surgical journals (1990 to 2005). Ann Plast Surg 2009, 62:293-296.
• [10]Fung AE, Palanki R, Bakri SJ, Depperschmidt E, Gibson A: Applying the CONSORT and STROBE statements to evaluate the reporting quality of neovascular age-related macular degeneration studies. Ophthalmology 2009, 116:286-96.
• [11]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, 34:2476-80.
• [12]Becker A, Blümle A, Antes G, Bannasch H, Torio-Padron N, Stark GB, Momeni A: Controlled trials in aesthetic plastic surgery: a 16-year analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008, 32:359-362.
• [13]Chang EY, Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG: Quality of clinical studies in aesthetic surgery journals: a 10-year review. Aesthet Surg J 2009, 29:144-147.
• [14]Chung KC, Kalliainen LK, Spilson SV, Walters MR, Kim HM: The prevalence of negative studies with inadequate statistical power: an analysis of the plastic surgery literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002, 109:1-6.
• [15]Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS: Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996, 312:71-72.
• [16]Van der Wijden CL, Overbeke JA: Audit of reports of randomised clinical trials published in one journal over 45 years. BMJ 1995, 311:918.
• [17]Sibbald B, Roland M: Understanding controlled trials: why are randomised controlled trials important? BMJ 1998, 316:201.
• [18]Duan Y, Li J, Ai C, Chen Y, Chen P, Zhang M, Hopewell S: Quality of trials reported as conference abstracts in China: how well are they reported? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009, 25:479-484.
• [19]Jia CY, Wang YC, Bai F: Analysis of the quality of papers dealing with clinical trails in "Chinese Journal of Burns" during 2000-2004 by the standard of evidence-based medicine. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006, 59:787-796.
• [20]Karri V: Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: survey of output and quality of reporting. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006, 59:787-796.
• [21]Delgado-Rodríguez M, Llorca J: Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004, 58:635-641.
• [22]Fatiregun AA, Asuzu MC: Structured and unstructured abstracts in journal articles: a review. Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal 2003, 10:197-200.