Cited by 8Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Writing and PublishingAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials related to implant dentistry

Open access
Menne, Max C., Pandis, Nikolaos, Faggion, Clovis M.·2022·Journal of Periodontology

Abstract

Background: The abstract of a scientific article should be accurate and detailed in summarizing the information of the full‐text because it is the first article section the reader examines. This study assessed the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts related to implant dentistry and examined associations between reporting quality and study characteristics. Methods: On January 17, 2021, we searched the PubMed database for abstracts of RCTs published in high‐ranked periodontology and implant dentistry journals from 2016 to 2021. For each abstract, we assessed if the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT‐A) checklist items were reported completely, partially, or not reported. An Overall CONSORT Score (OCS) and relative score (OCS%) were calculated as a proxy to checklist adherance. Linear regression models were fitted to analyze associations between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting. Results: Four hundred and thirty‐four of the 678 retrieved abstracts were eligible for inclusion. The mean OCS and OCS% were 6.23 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.56) or 41.5% (SD = 10.4), respectively. Items most frequently reported included the title (n = 434; 100%), intended intervention (n = 425; 98%), and conclusions (n = 430; 99%). Participant allocation, masking, and trial registration were rarely completely reported with frequencies of 2%, 3%, and 4%, respectively. We found that number of authors, continent, type of RCT, number of centers, report of ethical approval, funding, structure, and length of the abstract were associated with reporting quality. Conclusion: The reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal. Journals should start to incorporate and endorse the use of the CONSORT‐A guidelines in their instructions to authors to enhance reporting quality.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jper.21-0396

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kiriakou J, Pandis N, Madianos P, Polychronopoulou A. Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology. J Evid-Based Dent Pract 2014;14:9-15.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Menne, M. C., Pandis, N., & Faggion, C. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry University Hospital Münster Münster Germany
Venue
Journal of Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-03-22
Volume
93
Issue
5
Pages
73-82
ISSN
  • 0022-3492 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-3670
OpenAlex
W3199823754
Cited by
8
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Periodontology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
abstract reporting quality, randomized controlled trials, implant dentistry, reporting guidelines adherence, trial characteristics, blinding, clinical trial registration, funding disclosure, research ethics approval

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review