BackgroundA scientific abstract is a shortened version of a scientific paper. It is, aside from the title, the most frequently read and most easily accessed portion of an article reporting original scientific research. 1 Often, readers of a scientific journal will only read the abstract, choosing to read at length those papers that are most interesting to them. For this reason, and because abstracts are frequently made available to readers by various computer abstracting services, this section should be written succinctly, in order to have the greatest impact in as few words as possible. 2 However, reading an abstract has never been a substitute for reading the entire article, since crucial details of the study are most often not addressed in this section. 3 Broadly, two types of abstracts exist. Indicative or descriptive abstracts deal with the content of the entire paper, whereas informative abstracts summarise the entire paper and provide an overview of the facts laid out in detail in the paper itself. These days, most abstracts are informative. 4 Respected scientific journals began publishing abstracts in 1956, while structure was not added until 1991. 5 Only about 50% of research projects that are initially submitted as conference abstracts, will eventually be published as full articles in peer-reviewed journals and full publication may not occur for several years. 6 As a result, a published abstract from a scientific meeting is often the only permanent source of information available on the methodology and results of a research project.Accurately reflecting the contents of the entire paper seems the most basic requirement for an abstract. 1 However, it was found that 18-68% of 264 abstracts in six major general medical journals, i.e. Annals of Internal Medicine, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med), had data in the abstract that were either inconsistent with or absent from the main body of the article. 7 This finding is especially worrying, since abstracts are widely used, often in separation from the original text, and data from the abstracts may be reported and disseminated in other works, other formats, and in the media. 1 It is against this background that we describe here structures for writing an abstract of an original study or review and the quality criteria used to assess such abstracts. SummarySince the abstracts of original papers are one of their most frequently read and most easily accessible elements, they should be as informative and accurate as possible. It is therefore worrying that 18-68% of 264 abstracts from six major general medical journals, were shown to contain data that were either inconsistent with or absent from the main body of the article. This paper provides an overview of published structures for writing an abstract of an original study or review and quality criteria to assess such abstracts. Guidelines for struct...

Even though efficacious treatments are available and moreover, a Consensus on asthma was published in 1999 by the Canadian Thoracic Society, there is still a care gap between asthma care and these guidelines.TEAM is a disease management program based on continuous improvement of quality of asthma care. The general objective is to develop and implement an intervention program based on clinical results and well defined needs of physicians and asthmatic patients.The first phase consisted of establishing a cartography of asthma for the province of Quebec. Results showed variations in morbidity and mortality from one region to another. Six regions were selected for the second phase: two high risk regions, three moderate risk regions and a low risk region.The second phase consisted of recruiting physicians , mainly general practitioners, for a cohort study. A total of 60 physicians have participated and recruited 228 patients. Participating physicians had to schedule three visits with their patient during a one year period. Both the physician and the patient filled out a questionnaire. Eventually physicians will receive a confidential report giving them feedback on their personal medical practice and general practice in their area. They will therefore be able to determine the gap between their own practice and the recommendations from the Canadian Consensus on Asthma. Preliminary analysis reveals interesting data that will be presented on site.The program is now in its third phase that is the interventions. First, research interventions are implemented in high and moderate risk areas and are targeting hospital emergency , access to spirometry and a tool to facilitate the application of the Canadian Consensus Guidelines during a medical consultation. In parallel continuing medical education activities will be offered to participating physicians from the cohort study. Keywords : asthma, disease management Background: In the region of Maastricht a disease management model for patients with asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) was designed. By integrating care the model aims to continuously improve the process of care delivery. Based on the intensity of care required all patients are assigned to one member of a team of care providers: general practitioner, respiratory nurse, or pulmonologist. Aim: Before implementation of the model a pilot study was performed to assess the feasibility of establishing a working diagnosis and assigning patients both with a central role for the respiratory nurse. Method: Following a well defined procedure, respiratory nurses evaluated the respiratory symptoms and lung function, including the reversibility of the airflow obstruction, of patients ( 18 yrs) submitted by their general practitioner. This procedure took place in primary care. Diagnosis, definition of severity of asthma or COPD, and assignment to one of the three primary responsible care providers was established by the team based on national guidelines. Results: During a period of six weeks, 247 patients were sub...