Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society Congress between 2015-2024: has there been an improvement over time?

Background Throughout a trial report, clear and accurate reporting is essential. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) Congress between 2015-2024. Associations between reporting quality and abstract characteristics were explored.Material And Methods All EOS Congress scientific abstracts published between 2015-2024 (2020 excluded) were included. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per CONSORT item and sum score were calculated. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and abstract characteristics was undertaken.Results 139 RCT congress abstracts were analysed. The most frequent years of RCT abstract presentation were 2018 (14.4%) and 2023 (19.4%). RCT abstracts were more likely to be poster types (62.6%), with corresponding authors based in Europe (77.7%), single centre (64.7%) and reporting a non-significant result for the primary outcome (54.0%). The mean overall total quality reporting score was 17.6 (SD 5.6, min 15 and max 22.8) out of a maximum score of 50. Items that tended not to be reported include authors contact details, participant (settings), randomization procedures and trial registration. Posters achieved lower scores compared to oral abstracts (-2.96; 95% CI -4.86, -1.07; P < 0.01). Additionally, an abstract word count greater than 251 words was associated with higher total score (3.28; 95% CI 0.74, 5.82; P = 0.012). A weak association (0.29, 95% CI: -0.03-0.62, p = 0.07) between year of abstract publication and an improvement in overall reporting score over time was evident.Limitations Only one society congress were assessed which may impact the generalisability of the results.Conclusions In relation to the CONSORT reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts checklist, RCT abstracts presented at EOS congress between 2015-2024 remain sub-optimal with reporting of key items lacking. However, reporting quality scores have shown an association with type of presentation (oral or poster), abstract word count and some evidence of improvement over time. Measures to encourage clear and consistent RCT abstract reporting are required.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Published
2025-06-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48620/89059
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society Congress between 2015-2024: has there been an improvement over time?

Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society Congress between 2015-2024: has there been an improvement over time?

article en

Abstract

Background Throughout a trial report, clear and accurate reporting is essential. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) Congress between 2015-2024. Associations between reporting quality and abstract characteristics were explored.Material And Methods All EOS Congress scientific abstracts published between 2015-2024 (2020 excluded) were included. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per CONSORT item and sum score were calculated. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and abstract characteristics was undertaken.Results 139 RCT congress abstracts were analysed. The most frequent years of RCT abstract presentation were 2018 (14.4%) and 2023 (19.4%). RCT abstracts were more likely to be poster types (62.6%), with corresponding authors based in Europe (77.7%), single centre (64.7%) and reporting a non-significant result for the primary outcome (54.0%). The mean overall total quality reporting score was 17.6 (SD 5.6, min 15 and max 22.8) out of a maximum score of 50. Items that tended not to be reported include authors contact details, participant (settings), randomization procedures and trial registration. Posters achieved lower scores compared to oral abstracts (-2.96; 95% CI -4.86, -1.07; P < 0.01). Additionally, an abstract word count greater than 251 words was associated with higher total score (3.28; 95% CI 0.74, 5.82; P = 0.012). A weak association (0.29, 95% CI: -0.03-0.62, p = 0.07) between year of abstract publication and an improvement in overall reporting score over time was evident.Limitations Only one society congress were assessed which may impact the generalisability of the results.Conclusions In relation to the CONSORT reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts checklist, RCT abstracts presented at EOS congress between 2015-2024 remain sub-optimal with reporting of key items lacking. However, reporting quality scores have shown an association with type of presentation (oral or poster), abstract word count and some evidence of improvement over time. Measures to encourage clear and consistent RCT abstract reporting are required.

Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Govt. Dental College & Hospital (IN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.