Structured abstracts: narrative review

Guimarães, Carlos Alberto

doi:10.1590/s0102-86502006000400014

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since 1987 when the Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature [ 25 – 27 ] first published recommendations for the adoption of structured abstracts, many journals have promoted their use, and many different formats for structured abstracts now exist. We recognise that journals may have developed their own set of headings for abstracts [ 76 , 77 ]. It is not the intention of this reporting guide to suggest changes to these headings but to recommend what information should be reported within them when describing a RCT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundClear, transparent, and sufficiently detailed abstracts of conferences and journal articles related to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important, because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on information in the abstract. Here, we extend the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement to develop a minimum list of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting the results of a RCT in any journal or conference abstract.Methods and FindingsWe generated a list of items from existing quality assessment tools and empirical evidence. A three-round, modified-Delphi process was used to select items. In all, 109 participants were invited to participate in an electronic survey; the response rate was 61%. Survey results were presented at a meeting of the CONSORT Group in Montebello, Canada, January 2007, involving 26 participants, including clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical editors. Checklist items were discussed for eligibility into the final checklist. The checklist was then revised to ensure that it reflected discussions held during and subsequent to the meeting. CONSORT for Abstracts recommends that abstracts relating to RCTs have a structured format. Items should include details of trial objectives; trial design (e.g., method of allocation, blinding/masking); trial participants (i.e., description, numbers randomized, and number analyzed); interventions intended for each randomized group and their impact on primary efficacy outcomes and harms; trial conclusions; trial registration name and number; and source of funding. We recommend the checklist be used in conjunction with this explanatory document, which includes examples of good reporting, rationale, and evidence, when available, for the inclusion of each item.ConclusionsCONSORT for Abstracts aims to improve reporting of abstracts of RCTs published in journal articles and conference proceedings. It will help authors of abstracts of these trials provide the detail and clarity needed by readers wishing to assess a trial's validity and the applicability of its results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Structured abstracts are designed to meet three objectives: (1) to inform readers better, (2) to improve search retrieval, and (3) to facilitate peer review. 4 We describe two formats for structured abstracts. In 1987 the Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature proposed guidelines for informative seven-heading abstracts.…”

Section: Structures Of Abstractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to write an abstract

Vrijhoef

Steuten

2007

European Diabetes Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

“…A growing number of scientific publications, especially in the biomedical area, such as the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and the JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association), have been using structured abstracts [22] as a way to optimally extract the contents of articles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A semantic model for scholarly electronic publishing in Biomedical Sciences

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite numerous advancements in information technology, electronic publishing is still based on the print text model. The natural language textual format prevents programs from semantically processing article content. A semantic model for scholarly electronic publishing is proposed, in which the article conclusion is specified by the author and recorded in a machineunderstandable format, enabling semantic retrieval and identification of traces of scientific discoveries and knowledge misunderstandings. 89 biomedical articles were analyzed for this purpose. A prototype system that partially implements the proposed model was developed. Four patterns of reasoning and sequencing of semantic elements were identified in the analyzed articles. A content model comprising semantic elements and their sequences in articles is proposed. The development and testing of a prototype of a Web submission interface to an electronic journal system that implements the proposed model are reported.

show abstract

Structured abstracts: narrative review

Cited by 20 publications

References 12 publications

CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration

CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration

How to write an abstract

A semantic model for scholarly electronic publishing in Biomedical Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About