Prepublication abstract-only reports compared with full-text manuscripts for randomised controlled trials in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review

IF 3.3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY BMJ Open Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001334
Vassiliki Sinopoulou, Morris Gordon, Gordon William Moran, Abdullah Mohammed Abousaleh ma Egiz, Sanjana Phlananthachai, Aditi Rane, Ahmed Hussein Ali Al-Tameemi
{"title":"Prepublication abstract-only reports compared with full-text manuscripts for randomised controlled trials in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review","authors":"Vassiliki Sinopoulou, Morris Gordon, Gordon William Moran, Abdullah Mohammed Abousaleh ma Egiz, Sanjana Phlananthachai, Aditi Rane, Ahmed Hussein Ali Al-Tameemi","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of key therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are often presented and available as abstracts for significant periods of time prior to full publication, often being employed to make strategic and clinical prescribing decisions. We compared the concordance of prepublication abstract-only reports and their respective full-text manuscripts. Methods Pairs of full-text manuscripts and their respective prepublication abstract-only reports for the same RCT outcomes, at the same time point of analysis were included. The RCTs were on treatments for IBD with full-text manuscripts published between 2010 and 2023. Results We found 77 pairs of full-text manuscripts and their prepublication abstract-only reports. There were significant mismatches in the reporting of stated planned outcomes (65/77 matched, p<0.001) and primary outcomes reported in their results sections (67/77, p<0.001); trial registrations (34/65, p<0.001); the number of randomised participants (49/77, p=0.18); participants reaching end of study (21/71, p<0.001) and primary outcome data (40/73, p<0.001). Authors conclusions matched (75/77, p=0.157). Authors did not provide explicit or implied justifications for the absence or non-concordance for any of the above items. Conclusions Abstract-only reports have consistent issues with both limited reporting of key information and significant differences in data when compared with their later full-text publications. These are not related to further recruitment of patients or word count limitations and are never explained. As abstracts are often used in guidelines, reviews and stakeholder decision-making on prescribing, caution in their use is strongly suggested. Further work is needed to enhance minimum reporting standards in abstract-only works and ensure consistency with final published papers. Data are available on reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author for data requests.","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of key therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are often presented and available as abstracts for significant periods of time prior to full publication, often being employed to make strategic and clinical prescribing decisions. We compared the concordance of prepublication abstract-only reports and their respective full-text manuscripts. Methods Pairs of full-text manuscripts and their respective prepublication abstract-only reports for the same RCT outcomes, at the same time point of analysis were included. The RCTs were on treatments for IBD with full-text manuscripts published between 2010 and 2023. Results We found 77 pairs of full-text manuscripts and their prepublication abstract-only reports. There were significant mismatches in the reporting of stated planned outcomes (65/77 matched, p<0.001) and primary outcomes reported in their results sections (67/77, p<0.001); trial registrations (34/65, p<0.001); the number of randomised participants (49/77, p=0.18); participants reaching end of study (21/71, p<0.001) and primary outcome data (40/73, p<0.001). Authors conclusions matched (75/77, p=0.157). Authors did not provide explicit or implied justifications for the absence or non-concordance for any of the above items. Conclusions Abstract-only reports have consistent issues with both limited reporting of key information and significant differences in data when compared with their later full-text publications. These are not related to further recruitment of patients or word count limitations and are never explained. As abstracts are often used in guidelines, reviews and stakeholder decision-making on prescribing, caution in their use is strongly suggested. Further work is needed to enhance minimum reporting standards in abstract-only works and ensure consistency with final published papers. Data are available on reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author for data requests.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
炎症性肠病随机对照试验的预发表摘要报告与全文稿件比较:系统综述
引言 炎症性肠病(IBD)主要疗法的随机对照试验(RCT)在全文发表前的相当长一段时间内往往以摘要的形式呈现和提供,通常被用于战略和临床处方决策。我们比较了发表前的纯摘要报告与相应的全文手稿的一致性。方法 在同一分析时间点,针对相同的 RCT 结果,纳入成对的全文手稿和各自的预出版纯摘要报告。RCT涉及IBD的治疗方法,全文稿件发表于2010年至2023年之间。结果 我们发现了 77 对全文手稿及其预出版纯摘要报告。在报告所述计划结果(65/77 份匹配,p<0.001)和结果部分报告的主要结果(67/77 份,p<0.001)、试验注册(34/65 份,p<0.001)、随机参与者人数(49/77 份,p=0.18)、研究结束参与者人数(21/71 份,p<0.001)和主要结果数据(40/73 份,p<0.001)方面存在明显的不匹配。作者结论一致(75/77,p=0.157)。作者未就上述任何项目的缺失或不一致提供明确或隐含的理由。结论 仅有摘要的报告与后来的全文出版物相比,始终存在关键信息报告有限和数据差异显著的问题。这些问题与进一步招募患者或字数限制无关,也从未得到解释。由于摘要经常被用于指南、综述和利益相关者的处方决策中,因此强烈建议谨慎使用摘要。还需要进一步努力,提高纯摘要作品的最低报告标准,并确保与最终发表的论文保持一致。如有合理要求,可提供数据。如需数据,请联系通讯作者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Gastroenterology
BMJ Open Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
68
审稿时长
2 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Gastroenterology is an online-only, peer-reviewed, open access gastroenterology journal, dedicated to publishing high-quality medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas of gastroenterology. It is the open access companion journal of Gut and is co-owned by the British Society of Gastroenterology. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
期刊最新文献
Home-based EXercise and motivAtional programme before and after Liver Transplantation (EXALT): study protocol for phase II two-centre, randomised controlled trial. Patients’ and health professionals’ research priorities for chronic pain associated with inflammatory bowel disease: a co-produced sequential mixed methods Delphi consensus study Serum amyloid A for predicting prognosis in patients with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease Diagnostic application of the ColonFlag AI tool in combination with faecal immunochemical test in patients on an urgent lower gastrointestinal cancer pathway Associations of gut microbiota features and circulating metabolites with systemic inflammation in children.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1