Discussion

The major finding of this work is: comparing the quality of conference abstracts published at the 2005 and the 2008 World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention, an improved quality of reporting is evident, as determined by the CONSORT and STROBE criteria. While the percentage of published RCT in abstracts at the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention remained unchanged at about 10%, a significant improvement was evident in reporting abstracts in RCT as well as for observational studies.

A recent analysis studying the quality of reporting of randomised clinical trials in abstracts of the 2005 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology found that the quality was suboptimal in many RCT abstracts.6 A more structural approach that ensures more detailed reporting of eligibility criteria, active and comparator interventions flow of participants, and adequate summary and precision of result is warranted. In this respect, the CONSORT statement sets out to recommend what information should be reported when describing a RCT. They strongly recommend the use of structured abstracts for reporting RCTs in both the abstracts of journal articles and conference proceedings. Given the fact that the CONSORT criteria were primarily designed for RCTs and showing discrepancies in matching with all abstracts, the STROBE Statement was used for observational designs. Currently, there are no published data on the conference abstract quality regarding a score based on the CONSORT statement for RCT or based on the STROBE Statement for observational studies.

The STROBE Statement was developed to assist authors when writing up analytical observational studies, to support editors and reviewers when considering such articles form publication. In contrast to the CONSORT statement, the STROBE criteria focused on reporting observational studies.

The STROBE criteria are currently not limited on the abstract, but for the full manuscript. The criteria bias, study size, quantitative variables, descriptive data, limitation and generalisability demonstrate some inconsistencies in matching to the abstract. Some of these criteria were reported in the abstract, and some criteria were generally not described in an abstract because of space limitations. In addition, the STROBE statement should not be interpreted as an attempt to prescribe the reporting of observational research in a rigid format. The checklist items should be addressed in sufficient detail and with clarity somewhere in an article, but the order and format for presenting information depend on author preferences, journal style and the traditions of the research field.

Clear, transparent and accurate reporting or research is important because it enables readers to understand what was done and hence to evaluate the reliability and relevance of the findings. The extension of CONSORT and STROBE Statement aims to improve the reporting in RCT and observational studies, respectively. However, we believe, beyond the primary scope of CONSORT for RCT and STROBE for observational studies, that even other clinical trials will benefit from the implementation of the aforementioned CONSORT and STROBE criteria to improve the reporting quality, both in the abstract and in the full manuscript.

As far as the minimum requirements for future conference abstracts are concerned, it is rather difficult to propose detail suggestions. Following the CONSORT and STROBE criteria, in our view it would be crucial in future to clearly note the study design, details on recruitment of participants, main outcome scores, harms and especially potential funding. These items would allow the abstract reader to assess the conference abstract in a more comprehensive way. However, limited available space has to be considered in this regard. Therefore, author guidelines might be adjusted in a way to enhance the information content, even for conference abstracts such as for the third World Conference on Sports Injury Prevention

Word count limitation in conference abstracts has to be determined in this regard. To obtain a more comprehensive reporting quality of conference abstracts in clinical trials, a modified abstract structure is to be considered in the future. A more comprehensive structure of RCT according to the CONSORT and observational studies according to the STROBE statement will need a further subdivision of abstract categories introduction, methods, results and conclusion. However, we calculated that between 275 and 300 words would be necessary to obtain and address all issues raised in the CONSORT or STROBE statements. The American Society for Plastic Surgeons has introduced the need for additional conference abstract information during abstract submission. The following subheadings are to be addressed:

• ▶ type of clinical question;

• ▶ study population;

• ▶ intervention/exposure of interest;

• ▶ outcome;

• ▶ research design;

• ▶ methods;

• ▶ data;

• ▶ conclusion.

For future conference organisation teams, it might be worth while considering subheadings for abstract submission. External funding as well as harms should be addressed in future conference abstracts in much more detail. For RCT details on the randomisation process, the type of analysis (intention to treat), and the trial registration number are reasonable issues to be addressed.