This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Krzyzanowska, M. K. Articles by Tannock, I. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Krzyzanowska, M. K. Articles by Tannock, I. F. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Quality of Abstracts Describing Randomized Trials in the Proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology Meetings: Guidelines for Improved Reporting

From the Department of Medical Oncology and the Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Address reprint requests to Ian F. Tannock, MD, PhD, Princess Margaret Hospital, 610 University Ave, 5-208, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada; e-mail: ian.tannock{at}uhn.on.ca

PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of reporting in abstracts describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the Proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meetings and to propose reporting guidelines for abstracts that are submitted to future meetings.

METHODS: Guidelines for reporting of RCTs in abstracts were developed by extracting key elements from published guidelines for full reports of RCTs, and modified based on an expert survey. Abstracts presenting results of RCTs with sample size 200 were identified from the ASCO Proceedings for the years 1989 to 1998. Information regarding the quality of each abstract was extracted, and a quality score (possible range, 0 to 10) was assigned based on adherence to the guidelines.

RESULTS: Brief description of the intervention, explicit identification of the primary end point, and presentation of results accompanied by statistical tests were regarded by experts as the most important items to include in an abstract, whereas presentation of secondary and subgroup analyses was the least important. Deficiencies in reporting were present in almost all of the 510 abstracts; for example, only 22% of the abstracts provided explicit identification of the primary end point. The median quality score was 5.5 (range, 2.0 to 8.5); the quality score improved with time (P < .0001) and was better for oral or plenary presentations (P = .0003).

CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of RCTs in abstracts submitted to Annual Meetings of ASCO is suboptimal. Although space precludes the inclusion of details required in the final report, abstracts could be improved through the use of explicit minimal guidelines, which are suggested in this article.

Supported in part by a Cancer Care Ontario Fellowship (M.K.K.) and an ASCO Young Investigator Award (M.K.K.).

Presented in part at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Chicago, IL, May 31, 2003.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. M. Booth, D. W. Cescon, L. Wang, I. F. Tannock, and M. K. Krzyzanowska Evolution of the Randomized Controlled Trial in Oncology Over Three Decades J. Clin. Oncol., November 20, 2008; 26(33): 5458 - 5464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Jatoi and P. L. Nguyen Do Patients Die from Rashes from Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors? A Systematic Review to Help Counsel Patients About Holding Therapy Oncologist, November 1, 2008; 13(11): 1201 - 1204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. C. Tam and S. J. Hotte Consistency of Phase III Clinical Trial Abstracts Presented at an Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Compared With Their Subsequent Full-Text Publications J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2008; 26(13): 2205 - 2211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Hopewell, A. Eisinga, and M. Clarke Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts Journal of Information Science, April 1, 2008; 34(2): 162 - 173. [Abstract] [PDF]

				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]

				C. M. Booth and I. Tannock Reflections on Medical Oncology: 25 Years of Clinical Trials Where Have We Come and Where Are We Going? J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2008; 26(1): 6 - 8. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. L. Bedard, M. K. Krzyzanowska, M. Pintilie, and I. F. Tannock Statistical Power of Negative Randomized Controlled Trials Presented at American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meetings J. Clin. Oncol., August 10, 2007; 25(23): 3482 - 3487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Lai, R. Chu, M. Fraumeni, and L. Thabane Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Primary Treatment of Brain Tumors J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2006; 24(7): 1136 - 1144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Tannock Features of a High Quality Phase 3 Trial Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book, April 1, 2005; 2005(1): 207 - 210. [Full Text] [PDF]