The reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials on Curcuma longa L.: A cross-sectional study based on the MEDLINE database

Abstract

Aim: To analyze the quality of abstracts of the randomized controlled clinical trials on Curcuma longa L.
Methods: We queried MEDLINE via PubMed for abstracts of randomized controlled trials on Curcuma longa L. and evaluated their reporting quality according to the criteria from the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. The collected data were analyzed using the χ2 statistical test to examine a correlation between the presence of CONSORT checklist items and the structure of the abstract.
Results: The search retrieved 170 scientific articles, of which 138 met our inclusion criteria. The median total score of the abstracts was 7, with most scores ranging between 6 and 9. We found significant differences regarding the presence of CONSORT items depending on the abstract structure: objective and primary outcomes appeared the most frequently, while source of funding and randomization process appeared the least frequently.
Conclusion: According to CONSORT criteria, abstracts of randomized controlled trials on Curcuma longa L. exhibit suboptimal quality. Most worryingly, there is a lack of information on funding sources and randomization processes in most of the abstracts, significantly impacting the transparency and trustworthiness of the clinical trials.