Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in pediatric dentistry: reporting quality and spin

Abstract

Abstract Background Abstracts provide readers a concise and readily accessible information of the trials. However, poor reporting quality and spin (misrepresentation of research findings) can lead to an overestimation in trial validity. This methodological study aimed to assess the reporting quality and spin among randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in pediatric dentistry. Methods We hand-searched RCTs in five leading pediatric dental journals between 2015 and 2021. Reporting quality in each abstract was assessed using the original 16-item CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality. We evaluated the presence and characteristics of spin only in abstracts of parallel-group RCTs with nonsignificant primary outcomes according to pre-determined spin strategies. Results One hundred eighty-two abstracts were included in reporting quality evaluation. The mean overall quality score was 4.57 (SD, 0.103; 95% CI, 4.36–4.77; score range, 1–10). Only interventions, objective, and conclusions were adequately reported. Use of flow diagram (P < 0.001) was the only significant factor of higher reporting quality. Of the 51 RCT abstracts included for spin analysis, spin was identified in 40 abstracts (78.4%), among which 23 abstracts (45.1%) had spin in the Results section and 39 in the Conclusions Sect. (76.5%). Conclusions The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in pediatric dentistry is suboptimal and the prevalence of spin is high. Joint efforts are needed to improve reporting quality and minimize spin.

Keywords

• Pediatric dentistry
• Reporting quality
• Randomized controlled trial
• Abstract
• Misinterpretation