title: Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals.
  
  
  METHODS
  Electronic searches with supplementary hand searching to identify randomized controlled trials in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, the Angle Orthodontist, the European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Journal of Orthodontics from 2006 to 2011 were undertaken. The completeness of abstract reporting was evaluated with a modified CONSORT for abstracts statement checklist. The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate examinations of statistical associations (P = 0.05).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Abstracts of 117 randomized controlled trials were identified and assessed. Most were published in either the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (53%) or the Angle Orthodontist (23%); most abstracts (85.5%) were structured. The mean overall reporting quality score was 60.2%. In relation to individual quality items, most abstracts demonstrated clear reporting of interventions (97.4%), objectives (93.2%), and number of participants randomized (95.7%). Insufficient reporting of randomization procedures, allocation concealment, blinding, and failure to report confidence intervals and harms were almost universal. Registrations of randomized controlled trials and sources of funding were not reported in any of the identified abstracts. The highest reporting score was noted in the Journal of Orthodontics (66%; 95% confidence interval, 63.5-68.7).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in orthodontic journals is suboptimal. In view of the primacy of research abstracts, efforts should be made to improve their reporting.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Dentistry, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom. padhraig.fleming@gmail.com
authors.forename: Padhraig S
authors.initials: PS
authors.lastname: Fleming
authors.forename: Niamh
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Buckley
authors.forename: Jadbinder
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Seehra
authors.forename: Argy
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Polychronopoulou
authors.forename: Nikolaos
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Pandis
mesh_terms: D000043:Abstracting and Indexing / Q000592:standards*; D015706:Bibliometrics; D057189:Checklist; D006801:Humans; D009970:Orthodontics; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012042:Registries; D012107:Research Design; D012109:Research Support as Topic