Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Professional medical writing support and the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals.
Mills, Ira; Sheard, Catherine; Hays, Meredith; Douglas, Kevin; Winchester, Christopher C; Gattrell, William T.
Afiliação
  • Mills I; PAREXEL International, Hackensack, NJ, 07601, USA.
  • Sheard C; Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TH, UK.
  • Hays M; Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
  • Douglas K; Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
  • Winchester CC; School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton on Tees, TS17 6BH, UK.
  • Gattrell WT; Research Evaluation Unit, Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd, Oxford, OX13 5QJ, UK.
F1000Res ; 6: 1489, 2017.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29034080
ABSTRACT

Background:

In articles reporting randomized controlled trials, professional medical writing support is associated with increased adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). We set out to determine whether professional medical writing support was also associated with improved adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts.

Methods:

Using data from a previously published cross-sectional study of 463 articles reporting randomized controlled trials published between 2011 and 2014 in five top medical journals, we determined the association between professional medical writing support and CONSORT for Abstracts items using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Results:

The mean proportion of adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts items reported was similar with and without professional medical writing support (64.3% vs 66.5%, respectively; p=0.30). Professional medical writing support was associated with lower adherence to reporting study setting (relative risk [RR]; 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.70), and higher adherence to disclosing harms/side effects (RR 2.04; 95% CI, 1.37-3.03) and funding source (RR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18-2.60).

Conclusions:

Although professional medical writing support was not associated with increased overall adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts, important aspects were improved with professional medical writing support, including reporting of adverse events and funding source. This study identifies areas to consider for improvement.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article