Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including physiotherapy interventions are highly important research designs for determining whether physiotherapy is effective. Most often, readers evaluate the study based on the information presented in the abstract at the initial impression stage. Therefore, well-designed and appropriately reported RCTs largely influence the decision-making process.

Objectives: Abstracts published at congresses provide a direct way to access the results of RCTs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of RCT abstracts including physiotherapy presented at the 2025 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) Congress.

Methods: The 2025 International EULAR Congress Abstract Book was screened. Abstracts of RCTs including physiotherapy were evaluated based on 17 items of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts guidelines. Total scores of the 15 abstracts obtained from the screening were calculated and compared.

Results: Searches in the congress book were conducted using the keyword “physiotherapy”; abstracts obtained from oral and poster presentations were reviewed, and 15 abstracts including a physiotherapy intervention were included in the analysis. General results were reported in all studies (100%), and the word “randomized” was included in the title of most abstracts; objectives and funding information were appropriately reported (86.7%). Furthermore, the planned interventions were mostly defined correctly (80%). Reporting rates were low for primary outcomes (26.7%), blinding (20%), and randomization (6.7%). Information regarding participants and authors was not reported in any abstract. The mean score of the evaluated abstracts was calculated as 8.1 with a standard deviation of 2.06.

It was observed that critical methodological items of RCT abstracts including physiotherapy presented at the EULAR Congress were reported at a very low level, and overall, the reporting quality of the abstracts was found to be in the low-to-moderate range. It is suggested that abstracts should be reported according to standards to allow for clearer and more comprehensible presentation.

Conclusions: According to the findings of the study, the main criteria forming the basis of RCTs were found to be inadequately and incompletely reported. In particular, the failure of RCT abstracts presented at the congress to be reported clearly and in accordance with standards leads to the methodological quality of the studies not being properly evaluated. Therefore, in future studies, special attention should be paid to more carefully presenting important components such as randomization and blinding.

REFERENCES: [1] Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, Schulz KF; CONSORT Group. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2008;22;5(1):20.

[2] Can MF, Oztas M, Yagci G, Ozturk E, Yildiz R, Peker Y. Quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at the Turkish National Surgical Congresses over the last decade: an audit based on the CONSORT guidelines. Turkish Journal of Surgery. 2011;27(2):67–73.

[3] Hasbahçeci M, Başak F, Uysal O. Evaluation of reporting quality of the 2010 and 2012 National Surgical Congress oral presentations by CONSORT, STROBE and Timmer criteria. Ulus Cerrahi Derg. 2014;1;30(3):138-46.

Acknowledgments: NIL.

Disclosure of Interests: None declared.