Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial - PubMed
- ️Thu Jan 01 1998
Clinical Trial
. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):267-9.
doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.267.
Affiliations
- PMID: 9676677
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.267
Clinical Trial
Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial
R M Pitkin et al. JAMA. 1998.
Abstract
Context: The most-read section of a research article is the abstract, and therefore it is especially important that the abstract be accurate.
Objective: To test the hypothesis that providing authors with specific instructions about abstract accuracy will result in improved accuracy.
Design: Randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention specifying 3 types of common defects in abstracts of articles that had been reviewed and were being returned to the authors with an invitation to revise.
Mean outcome measure: Proportion of abstracts containing 1 or more of the following defects: inconsistency in data between abstract and body of manuscript (text, tables, and figures), data or other information given in abstract but not in body, and/or conclusions not justified by information in the abstract.
Results: Of 250 manuscripts randomized, 13 were never revised and 34 were lost to follow-up, leaving a final comparison between 89 in the intervention group and 114 in the control group. Abstracts were defective in 25 (28%) and 30 (26%) cases, respectively (P=.78). Among 55 defective abstracts, 28 (51%) had inconsistencies, 16 (29%) contained data not present in the body, 8 (15%) had both types of defects, and 3 (5%) contained unjustified conclusions.
Conclusions: Defects in abstracts, particularly inconsistencies between abstract and body and the presentation of data in abstract but not in body, occur frequently. Specific instructions to authors who are revising their manuscripts are ineffective in lowering this rate. Journals should include in their editing processes specific and detailed attention to abstracts.
Comment in
-
Improving the accuracy of abstracts in scientific articles.
Lodge H. Lodge H. JAMA. 1998 Dec 23-30;280(24):2071. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.24.2071. JAMA. 1998. PMID: 9875864 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Khan MS, Shaikh A, Ochani RK, Akhtar T, Fatima K, Khan SU, Mookadam F, Murad MH, Figueredo VM, Doukky R, Krasuski RA. Khan MS, et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019 May;12(5):e005260. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005260. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019. PMID: 31030545 Free PMC article.
-
Accuracy of abstracts for original research articles in pharmacy journals.
Ward LG, Kendrach MG, Price SO. Ward LG, et al. Ann Pharmacother. 2004 Jul-Aug;38(7-8):1173-7. doi: 10.1345/aph.1D416. Epub 2004 May 18. Ann Pharmacother. 2004. PMID: 15150375
-
Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and use of structured abstracts.
Scherer RW, Crawley B. Scherer RW, et al. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):269-72. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.269. JAMA. 1998. PMID: 9676678
-
Jia PL, Xu B, Cheng JM, Huang XH, Kwong JSW, Liu Y, Zhang C, Han Y, Xu C. Jia PL, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jul 15;19(1):148. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0798-5. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019. PMID: 31307388 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals.
Wager E, Middleton P. Wager E, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000002. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000002.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007. PMID: 17443626 Updated. Review.
Cited by
-
Papi A, Khalaji D, Rizi HA, Shabani A, Hassanzadeh A. Papi A, et al. J Educ Health Promot. 2014 May 5;3:36. doi: 10.4103/2277-9531.131913. eCollection 2014. J Educ Health Promot. 2014. PMID: 25013829 Free PMC article.
-
A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research.
Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, Bantoto B, Luo C, Shams I, Shahid H, Chang Y, Sun G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, Levine MAH, Adachi JD, Thabane L. Li G, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 29;17(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017. PMID: 29287585 Free PMC article.
-
A systematic review of psychotherapy research topics (2000-2016): a computer-assisted approach.
Gennaro A, Gelo OCG, Lagetto G, Salvatore S. Gennaro A, et al. Res Psychother. 2019 Dec 20;22(3):429. doi: 10.4081/ripppo.2019.429. eCollection 2019 Dec 19. Res Psychother. 2019. PMID: 32913819 Free PMC article.
-
Marcelo A, Gavino A, Isip-Tan IT, Apostol-Nicodemus L, Mesa-Gaerlan FJ, Firaza PN, Faustorilla JF Jr, Callaghan FM, Fontelo P. Marcelo A, et al. Evid Based Med. 2013 Apr;18(2):48-53. doi: 10.1136/eb-2012-100537. Epub 2012 Jul 10. Evid Based Med. 2013. PMID: 22782923 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Wang M, Jin Y, Hu ZJ, Thabane A, Dennis B, Gajic-Veljanoski O, Paul J, Thabane L. Wang M, et al. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017 Aug 18;8:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.08.009. eCollection 2017 Dec. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017. PMID: 29696191 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources