AIMS To assess the reporting quality of recently published randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in Endodontics, to investigate factors associated with reporting quality, and to evaluate the existence and characteristics of spin. Spin refers to reporting strategies that distort study results and misguide readers. METHODOLOGY The PubMed database was searched to identify abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics published during 2017 to 2018. Two authors assessed the reporting quality of each included abstract using the original 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist, with the overall quality score (OQS, range: 0 to 16) being the primary outcome measure. For each individual item, a score of '1' was given if it was described adequately, and '0' if the description was inadequate. Linear regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with reporting quality. For the evaluation of spin, two authors selected parallel-group RCTs with a nonsignificant primary outcome from the included abstracts, and evaluated independently the existence and characteristics of spin among these abstracts. RESULTS A total of 162 abstracts were included for assessment of reporting, for which the mean OQS was 3.97 (SD, 1.30; 95 % CI, 3.77 to 4.17). According to multivariable analysis, origin from Europe (P=0.001) and reporting of the exact P value (P=0.020) were significantly associated with better reporting. Forty abstracts with statistically nonsignificant results for their primary outcome were included for spin evaluation, among which 34 (85.0%) had at least one type of spin. Thirty-two abstracts (94.1%) had spin in their conclusions section, and six abstracts (17.6%) had spin in the results section. CONCLUSIONS The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in Endodontics needs to be improved. The occurrence rate of spin in the sample of abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics was high. Relevant stakeholders are recommended to be familiar with the CONSORT for Abstracts guideline and develop active strategies to ensure its implementation.

中文翻译：

---

已发表的牙髓治疗随机对照试验摘要：报告质量和旋转。

目的评估牙髓学中最近发表的随机对照试验（RCT）摘要的报告质量，调查与报告质量相关的因素，并评估自旋的存在和特征。自旋是指歪曲研究结果并误导读者的报告策略。方法论检索了PubMed数据库，以识别2017年至2018年出版的牙髓学领域的RCT摘要。两位作者使用原始的16项CONSORT for Abstracts清单评估了每个包含摘要的报告质量，总体质量得分为OQS ，范围：0到16）是主要结果指标。对于每个单独的项目，如果描述得当，则得分为“ 1”，如果描述得不够，得分为“ 0”。进行线性回归分析以确定与报告质量相关的因素。为了评估自旋，两位作者从所包括的摘要中选择了具有非重要主要结果的平行组RCT，并在这些摘要中独立评估了自旋的存在和特征。结果总共包括162个摘要用于评估报告，其平均OQS为3.97（SD，1.30； 95％CI，3.77至4.17）。根据多变量分析，源自欧洲（P = 0.001）和报告确切的P值（P = 0.020）与更好的报告显着相关。包括40篇主要结果在统计学上不显着的摘要用于旋转评价，其中34篇（85.0％）具有至少一种旋转类型。三十二摘要（94。1％）的结论部分是自旋的，六个摘要（17.6％）的结果部分是自旋的。结论牙髓学中RCT摘要的报告质量有待提高。在牙髓学领域的RCT摘要样本中，自旋的发生率很高。建议相关利益相关者熟悉CONSORT for Abstracts指南并制定积极的策略以确保其实施。