[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.166.74.94. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
November 1, 1995

Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials-Reply

Author Affiliations

Loeb Medical Research Institute Ottawa, Ontario
Deputy Editor (West), JAMA

JAMA. 1995;274(17):1342-1343. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530170022015
Abstract

In Reply.  —We are glad Dr Atkins supports our experiment in structured reporting.1 Atkins raises the issue of the potential difficulty in reporting randomized controlled trials using this format. Similar concerns were also raised with the development of more informative abstracts—"structured abstracts." Evidence to date indicates that structured abstracts have had a positive impact on how the results of studies are communicated.2There is also evidence that the quality of reporting of structured abstracts is better than that of nonstructured abstracts. Taddio and colleagues3 compared the quality of reporting of 150 nonstructured abstracts (published in 1988 and 1989) and 150 structured abstracts (published in 1991 and 1992) published in the British Medical Journal, Canadian Medical Association Journal, and JAMA. Quality was assessed using a 32-item criteria checklist. The scoring range was between 0 and 100 with higher scores indicating superior quality. Assessors completed their quality assessment blinded

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×