This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hopewell, S. Articles by Clarke, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hopewell, S. Articles by Clarke, M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference: how completely are trials reported?

The UK Cochrane Centre, Summertown Pavilion, Middle Way, Oxford, OX2 7LG, UK. shopewell{at}cochrane.co.uk

Mike Clarke

UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, UK

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.

Clinical Trials, Vol. 2, No. 3, 265-268 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/1740774505cn091oa


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. L. Strevel, N. G. Chau, G. R. Pond, A. J. Murgo, P. S. Ivy, and L. L. Siu Improving the Quality of Abstract Reporting for Phase I Cancer Trials Clin. Cancer Res., March 15, 2008; 14(6): 1782 - 1787. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Boutron, D. Moher, D. G. Altman, K. F. Schulz, P. Ravaud, and for the CONSORT Group Extending the CONSORT Statement to Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment: Explanation and Elaboration Ann Intern Med, February 19, 2008; 148(4): 295 - 309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]