assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading chinese medical journals评估随机对照试验的质量报告的摘要发表在中国五个主要医学期刊.pdf

Assessment of the Quality of Reporting in Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Five Leading Chinese Medical Journals 1,2. 1. 1 1 1 1 Yaolong Chen , Jing Li , Changlin Ai , Yurong Duan , Ling Wang , Mingming Zhang *, Sally Hopewell3* 1 Chinese Cochrane Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, 2 Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China, 3 UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom 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