Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Abstracts are sometime the only public record of a research. Analysis of the 18th Cochrane Colloquium abstracts demonstrated omission of key content and data.
Objective: To quantify the quality of abstracts presented at the 19th Cochrane Colloquium using a modified version of the CONSORT for abstracts.
Methods: A modified version of the CONSORT for abstracts with 11 distinct attributes was used to measure the quality of abstracts across study types. Two reviewers independently assessed each of the 76 abstracts presented orally at the 19th Cochrane Colloquium.
Results: Of the 76 abstracts, 24 were not research studies and excluded from the analysis. The mean score of abstract quality for the 19th Cochrane Colloquium was 8.4 (range 4–11). Of the oral presented abstracts, 56% did not adequately describe study design in the title; 35% omitted participant eligibility; 36% did not clearly define the outcomes; 37% did not describe sample size; and 53% did not describe effect estimates and precision. The Kappa score for the two reviewers was 0.79. The mean score of abstract quality for the 18th Cochrane Colloquium was 8.1 (range 1–11). The mean abstract scores between the 2 years were not statistically different (p = 0.3).
Conclusions: Results demonstrated that the 19th Cochrane Colloquium abstract quality did not differ significantly from the 18th Cochrane Colloquium abstract quality. Abstracts continue to fail to report crucial abstract content. Therefore, we recommend that key content items, such as study design, study eligibility, sample size, and outcome estimates, be reported through required fields during the online abstract submission process.
Objective: To quantify the quality of abstracts presented at the 19th Cochrane Colloquium using a modified version of the CONSORT for abstracts.
Methods: A modified version of the CONSORT for abstracts with 11 distinct attributes was used to measure the quality of abstracts across study types. Two reviewers independently assessed each of the 76 abstracts presented orally at the 19th Cochrane Colloquium.
Results: Of the 76 abstracts, 24 were not research studies and excluded from the analysis. The mean score of abstract quality for the 19th Cochrane Colloquium was 8.4 (range 4–11). Of the oral presented abstracts, 56% did not adequately describe study design in the title; 35% omitted participant eligibility; 36% did not clearly define the outcomes; 37% did not describe sample size; and 53% did not describe effect estimates and precision. The Kappa score for the two reviewers was 0.79. The mean score of abstract quality for the 18th Cochrane Colloquium was 8.1 (range 1–11). The mean abstract scores between the 2 years were not statistically different (p = 0.3).
Conclusions: Results demonstrated that the 19th Cochrane Colloquium abstract quality did not differ significantly from the 18th Cochrane Colloquium abstract quality. Abstracts continue to fail to report crucial abstract content. Therefore, we recommend that key content items, such as study design, study eligibility, sample size, and outcome estimates, be reported through required fields during the online abstract submission process.