Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles.

CONTEXT The section of a research article most likely to be read is the abstract, and therefore it is particularly important that the abstract reflect the article faithfully. OBJECTIVE To assess abstracts accompanying research articles published in 6 medical journals with respect to whether data in the abstract could be verified in the article itself. DESIGN Analysis of simple random samples of 44 articles and their accompanying abstracts published during 1 year(July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997) in each of 5 major general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) and a consecutive sample of 44 articles published during 15 months (July 1, 1996-August 15, 1997) in the CMAJ. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Abstracts were considered deficient if they contained data that were either inconsistent with corresponding data in the article's body (including tables and figures) or not found in the body at all. RESULTS The proportion of deficient abstracts varied widely (18%-68%) and to a statistically significant degree (P<.001) among the 6 journals studied. CONCLUSIONS Data in the abstract that are inconsistent with or absent from the article's body are common, even in large-circulation general medical journals.

[1]  Comans Ml,et al.  [The structured summary: a tool for reader and author]. , 1990 .

[2]  J Froom,et al.  Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts. , 1993, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  T R Einarson,et al.  Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. , 1994, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[4]  R M Pitkin,et al.  Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial. , 1998, JAMA.

[5]  P. Dorman,et al.  Doctors and patients don't agree: cross sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis , 1997, BMJ.

[6]  S. Goodman,et al.  Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[7]  Jack Froom,et al.  Presentation Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts , 1993 .

[8]  F. Gutzwiller,et al.  A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[9]  T R Einarson,et al.  Quality of abstracts of original research articles in CMAJ in 1989. , 1991, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[10]  J. Mary,et al.  Paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria: long-term follow-up and prognostic factors , 1996, The Lancet.

[11]  A. Overbeke,et al.  [The structured summary: a tool for reader and author]. , 1990, Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde.