Purpose To assess how completely trials published in conference proceedings are reported and whether this has changed over time.
Methods Conference abstracts published at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conference (1992 and 2002) were read to identify reports of randomized trials. A checklist was devised (based on CONSORT) to assess the completeness of reporting.
Results Four-hundred and ninety-four abstracts reporting randomized trials were identified; 209 in 1992 and 285 in 2002. More trials included “randomized” in the title in 2002 compared to 1992 (54% versus 36%). Almost no trials stated the method of allocation concealment, 12% stated the method of blinding, 95% described eligible participants and 98% described the interventions. Ninety-five per cent reported the number of participants in each trial. The median number of participants per trial increased over time; 120 in 1992 and 209 in 2002 (P, 0.01). In 1992, 67% of trials reported the number of participants analysed, compared to only 49% in 2002 (P, 0.01), 28% reported or suggested intention to treat analysis dropping to 15% in 2002. Twenty-nine abstracts in 2002 and five in 1992 reported no results, with a promise of presentation at the meeting.
Conclusions The reporting of conference abstracts for trials should be improved to further facilitate understanding of their conduct and validity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Scherer RW, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. The Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. Issue 4, 2000. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
2.
2. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev1997; 9: 15–21.
3.
3. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess2000;4: 1–115.
4.
4. Clarke M, Greaves L. Searching meeting abstracts: a comparison between an experienced handsearcher and an indexed, electronic databases. In 4th International Cochrane Colloquium; 20–24October 1996; Adelaide, Australia, A51.
5.
5. Moher D, Schultz KF, Altman DG for the CONSORT group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Int Med2001; 134: 657–661.
6.
6. Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Inadequate reporting of controlled trials as short reports. Lancet1998; 352: 1908-1908.
7.
7. Hayes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Int Med1990; 113: 69–76.
8.
8. Hayes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited. Cleft Palate Craniofaci1996; 33:1–9.
9.
9. Mulrow CD, Thacker SB, Pugh JA. A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Ann Int Med1988; 108: 613–615.
10.
10. McDonald S, Westby M, Clarke M, Lefebvre C. Number and size of randomized trials reported in general health care journals from 1948 to 1997. Int J Epidemiol2002; 31: 125–127.
11.
11. Chlebowski RT, Lillington LM. A decade of breast cancer clinical investigations: results as reported in the program/proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol1994; 12: 1789–1195.
12.
12. McIntosh N. Abstract information and structure at scientific meetings. Lancet1996; 347: 544–545.
13.
13. Panush RS, Delafuente JC, Connelly CS, Edwards NL, Greer JM. Profile of a meeting: how abstracts are written and reviewed. J Rheumatol1989; 16: 145–149.
14.
14. Rubin HR, Redelmeier DA, Wu AW, Steinberg EP. How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 annual meeting of Society of the General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med1993; 8: 255–258.
15.
15. Timmer A, Sutherland LR, Hilsden RJ. Development of a quality score for abstracts. BMC Med Res Methodol2003; 3:2-2.
