A systematic review of the quality of abstracts reporting on randomized controlled trials presented at major international cardiothoracic conferences

Abstract

Conference proceedings are widely available and may represent the only report of given research. Poor reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in conference abstracts may impede interpretability. In 2008, the Consolidating Standards of Reporting Trials group published minimum standards for RCT reporting in conference abstracts (CONSORT-A). We sought to evaluate the reporting quality of abstracts presented at major international cardiothoracic conferences. Abstracts were retrieved for the annual meetings of 5 cardiothoracic societies over 3 consecutive years (2016 to 2018). After screening, those reporting on RCTs were scored by 2 independent reviewers against the 17-item CONSORT-A checklist. The primary endpoint was the total number of checklist criteria reported in individual abstracts. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA ICv16. Of 3233 screened abstracts, 100 (3.1%) reported on RCTs. Average checklist adherence was 35% (median 6/17 items, IQR 2-15) across abstracts. Author contact (n = 0), funding disclosures (n = 3, 2.9%) and randomization methodology (n = 5, 4.8%) were the least-frequently reported. There was no statistically-significant difference in terms of reporting quality between conferences (n = 0.07) or years (p = .06). Trial registration, word count (>300), multicentre trial design and mention of CONSORT in the abstract were associated with higher reporting quality. Reporting quality was not associated with successful full-length publication within 2 years (p = .33). The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs presented at international cardiothoracic conferences is poor when benchmarked against the CONSORT-A standards. This highlights an area for targeted improvement.

Keywords: CONSORT; Cardiothoracic; Clinical trial; Conference abstracts; RCT; Reporting quality.