ObjectiveAssess the accuracy of abstracts in published veterinary ophthalmology articles.ProceduresAbstracts and contents of 204 original research articles in veterinary ophthalmology published in seven peer‐reviewed journals between 2016–2020 were reviewed. Abstracts were considered inconsistent if they contained data that were either missing from or inconsistent with corresponding data in the article's body. Each abstract was graded between 0 (inaccurate) to 3 (accurate), and each inconsistency was subjectively classified as minor or major. The influence of selected variables was assessed: journal, impact factor, year of publication, number of words in abstract, study type (prospective/retrospective), and characteristics of the corresponding author [institution (academia/private practice), country of domicile (native/non‐native English), number of publications].ResultsMost abstracts were accurate, with 1%, 4%, 9% and 86% receiving a score of 0, 1, 2 and 3, respectively. When detected, most inconsistencies were considered minor (77%). Although not statistically significant (p ≥ .130), the proportion of articles with a perfect score (=3) was higher in prospective (88%) vs. retrospective (81%) studies, academia (88%) vs. private practice (78%), and studies from corresponding authors domiciled in English (89%) vs. non‐English (83%) speaking countries. A significant but very weak (r = −0.15 to −0.19; p ≤ .034) negative correlation was found between accuracy score and number of words, as well as 1‐year and 5‐year impact factors.ConclusionsAlthough relatively uncommon, data in abstracts that are inconsistent or missing from the article's body do occur in veterinary ophthalmology articles, and could adversely influence a reader's interpretation of study findings.