Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Abstracts are often the only lasting evidence of research presented at conferences. Abstracts provide valuable information that may not be published outside of conferences. Minimum standard quality and data should be reported in abstracts so the readers can assess the research performed.
Objectives: We set out to descriptively quantify the quality of abstracts presented orally at the 19th Joint Colloquium of the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations.
Methods: A modified version of the CONSORT for Abstracts was developed to measure the quality of abstracts for all study types. The checklist consisted of 11 items evaluating title, methods, results, and conclusion. Two independent reviewers used the checklist to review 126 abstracts presented orally at the 18th Joint Colloquium of the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations in 2010. Descriptive analysis was used to characterize the quality of abstracts.
Results: Of the 126 abstracts, 25 were not research in nature, and were excluded from the analysis. The mean score was 8.1 (range 1 to 11) and the median score was 8. The items most abstracts did not report were study design in the title (76%) and participant eligibility (37%). Outcomes were not clearly defined in 30% of the abstracts. Studies were incomplete in 22% of the abstracts at the time of submission.
Conclusions: We recommend the use of a standardized methodology for reporting in abstracts to ensure the quality of the report. The findings of abstracts that were incomplete should be published in print or website versions as an addendum. We suggest that conferences provide abstract submission guidelines that are more concrete and descriptive.
Objectives: We set out to descriptively quantify the quality of abstracts presented orally at the 19th Joint Colloquium of the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations.
Methods: A modified version of the CONSORT for Abstracts was developed to measure the quality of abstracts for all study types. The checklist consisted of 11 items evaluating title, methods, results, and conclusion. Two independent reviewers used the checklist to review 126 abstracts presented orally at the 18th Joint Colloquium of the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations in 2010. Descriptive analysis was used to characterize the quality of abstracts.
Results: Of the 126 abstracts, 25 were not research in nature, and were excluded from the analysis. The mean score was 8.1 (range 1 to 11) and the median score was 8. The items most abstracts did not report were study design in the title (76%) and participant eligibility (37%). Outcomes were not clearly defined in 30% of the abstracts. Studies were incomplete in 22% of the abstracts at the time of submission.
Conclusions: We recommend the use of a standardized methodology for reporting in abstracts to ensure the quality of the report. The findings of abstracts that were incomplete should be published in print or website versions as an addendum. We suggest that conferences provide abstract submission guidelines that are more concrete and descriptive.