The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

How well do structured abstracts reflect the articles they summerize?

Record type: Article

Background: evidence-based medicine requires critical appraisal of published research. This is often done by reading the abstracts alone of published papers. This study examined how well structured abstracts reflect the articles they summarize in medical journals.
Methods: a total of 20 papers reporting original randomized trials were obtained from four general medical journals. Key study details, results, and conclusions were extracted from the full articles. Abstracts were examined to see what information from the article was included, and they were scrutinized for inaccuracies, data not presented in the main body, and ambiguous statements.
Results: nineteen abstracts (95%; 95% CI 75 to 100%) correctly stated the primary outcome. Eight abstracts (40%; 19% to 64%) were deficient in some way. Three (15%; 3% to 38%) contained incorrect or inconsistent figures or data. Six abstracts (30%; 12% to 54%) contained data not present in the full article.
Discussion: almost half of the abstracts studied contained some data inconsistent with the full article, or missing altogether. Authors and editors need to ensure that abstracts are of a high quality and accurately reflect the papers they are summarizing. CONSORT guidelines provide helpful indications as to what should be included in abstracts reporting clinical trials

Full text not available from this repository.

Citation

Peacock, Phillip J., Peters, Tim J. and Peacock, Janet L. (2009) How well do structured abstracts reflect the articles they summerize? European Sciences Editing, 35, (1), pp. 3-5.

More information

Published date: 2009

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 72774
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/72774
ISSN: 0258-3127
PURE UUID: 9d22296a-cdfa-4778-8e8c-b459f3c0f301

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 23 Feb 2010
Last modified: 18 Jul 2017 23:53

Export record

Contributors

Author: Phillip J. Peacock
Author: Tim J. Peters
Author: Janet L. Peacock

University divisions


Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×