【摘要】 目的评价中文发表的乳腺癌随机对照试验(RCT)摘要报告质量。方法运用计算机检索主要中文数据库,纳入中文发表的乳腺癌RCT,采用"摘要CONSORT"标准评价纳入RCT摘要的报告质量,使用Meta-Analyst软件进行统计分析。结果最终纳入符合标准的RCT 965篇,评价结果显示:乳腺癌RCT摘要中存在严重报告质量缺陷,尤其体现在"标题中判定为随机研究"(1.1%,95%CI:0.6%~2.0%)、"随机化"(3.8%,95%CI:2.8%~5.2%)、"盲法"(1.0%,95%CI:0.6%~1.9%)、"统计方法"(11.5%,95%CI:9.6%~13.7%)、"随机分组的例数"(7.5%,95%CI:6.0%~9.3%)、"招募对象"(12.2%,95%CI:10.3%~14.4%)、"试验注册信息"(13.1%,95%CI:11.1%~15.3%)和"资助来源"(8.1%,95%CI:6.5%~10.0%)8个方面。"摘要CONSORT"发布以后,可以显著提高"研究对象""干预""统计方法""结局"和"结论"的报告率。比较非中国科学引文数据库(CSCD),CSCD收录RCT的摘要在"标题识别随机""随机化""招募对象"和"资助来源"的报告上差异有统计学意义。结论中文发表乳腺癌RCT摘要存在严重报告缺陷,应当引起期刊编辑和研究员的重视。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials research papers among Chinese abstracts for breast cancer.Methods A systematical databases search was conductedto identify papers about RCT of breast cancer published in China."Abstract-CONSORT"statement was used to assess the quality of reporting.Statistical analysis was performed using Meta-Analyst software.Results A total of 965 RCT were identified.The serious reporting flaws were appeared for RCT abstract of breast cancer,especially,regarding following items:thestudy identified as randomized in title( 1.1%,95% CI:0.6%-2.0%),randomization 3.8%,95% CI:2.8%-5.2%),blinding( 1.0%,95% CI:0.6%-1.9%),statistical methods( 11.5%,95% CI:9.6%-13.7%),numbers randomized( 7.5%,95% CI:6.0%-9.3%),participants( 12.2%,95% CI:10.3%-14.4%),trial registration( 13.1%,95% CI:11.1%-15.3%),funding( 8.1%,95% CI:6.5%-10.0%).The improvements in participants,intervention,statisticalmethods,results and conclusions were increased when abstract CONSORT was published.There was statistical significant difference in study identified as randomized in title,randomization,and participants and funding betweenRCT abstract recorded by CSCD andnon-CSCD( international papers).Conclusion The serious reporting flaws were appeared for RCT abstract of breast cancer published in Chinese.More attentions should be made for editors and authors.更多还原