Skip to main content

Table 6 Factors associated with a better reporting of items of PRISMA for abstracts published in 2015

From: A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 

Overall reporting quality

Methodological reporting quality

Results reporting quality

 

Adjusted incidence rate ratios (95 % confidence interval)a

p

Adjusted incidence rate ratios (95 % confidence interval)a

p

Adjusted incidence rate ratios (95 % confidence interval)a

p

Abstract word count

 <300 (ref)

1

     

 ≥300

0.80 (0.74; 0.87)

<0.001

0.86 (0.59; 0.79)

<0.001

1.03 (0.87; 1.22)

0.731

Abstract format

 IMRAD (ref)

1

     

 8-headings

1.06 (0.96; 1.17)

0.279

1.33 (1.08; 1.65)

.008

1.04 (0.87; 1.24)

0.701

Publication on behalf of a group

      

 No (ref)

      

 Yes

0.90 (0.80; 1.00)

0.055

0.73 (0.55; 0.96)

.027

0.85 (0.64; 1.13)

0.271

Number of authors

 ≤6 (ref)

1

     

 >6

1.04 (0.97; 1.12)

0.251

1.03 (0.89; 1.19)

.721

1.02 (0.88; 1.18)

0.790

  1. Ref reference for mean difference calculation, PRISMA preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis, IMRAD introduction, methods, results, and discussion
  2. aGeneralized estimation equations with journal as grouping variable. PRISMA endorser variable was excluded from model because it was redundant