Skip to main content
PMC home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1994 May 15;150(10):1611–1615.

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.

A Taddio 1, T Pain 1, F F Fassos 1, H Boon 1, A L Ilersich 1, T R Einarson 1
PMCID: PMC1336964  PMID: 8174031

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in three medical journals. DESIGN: Blind, criterion-based observational study. SAMPLE: Random sample of 300 abstracts (25 abstracts per journal each year) of articles published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1988 and 1989 (nonstructured abstracts) and in 1991 and 1992 (structured abstracts). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality of abstracts was measured against 33 objective criteria, which were divided into eight categories (purpose, research design, setting, subjects, intervention, measurement of variables, results and conclusions). The quality score was determined by dividing the number of criteria present by the number applicable; the score varied from 0 to 1. RESULTS: The overall mean quality scores for nonstructured and structured abstracts were 0.57 and 0.74 respectively (p < 0.001). The frequency in meeting the specific criteria was generally higher for the structured abstracts than for the nonstructured ones. The mean quality score was higher for nonstructured abstracts in JAMA than for those in BMJ (0.60 v. 0.54, p < 0.05). The scores for structured abstracts did not differ significantly between the three journals. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support recommendations that promote the use of structured abstracts. Further studies should be performed to assess the effect of time on the quality of abstracts and the extent to which abstracts reflect the content of the articles.

Full text

PDF
1611

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Comans M. L., Overbeke A. J. De gestructureerde samenvatting: een hulpmiddel voor lezer en auteur. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1990 Dec 1;134(48):2338–2343. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Didolkar M. S., Flemming M. V., Venanzi W. E., Jr Abstract renders the summary superfluous. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1989 Mar;168(3):259–262. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Evans M., Pollock A. V. Trials on trial. A review of trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. Arch Surg. 1984 Jan;119(1):109–113. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1984.01390130091016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Froom P., Froom J. Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Jul;46(7):591–594. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90029-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gøtzsche P. C. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials. 1989 Mar;10(1):31–56. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90017-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Haynes R. B. More informative abstracts: current status and evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Jul;46(7):595–599. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90030-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Haynes R. B., Mulrow C. D., Huth E. J., Altman D. G., Gardner M. J. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med. 1990 Jul 1;113(1):69–76. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-113-1-69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hayward R. S., Wilson M. C., Tunis S. R., Bass E. B., Rubin H. R., Haynes R. B. More informative abstracts of articles describing clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 1993 May 1;118(9):731–737. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-118-9-199305010-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lock S. Structured abstracts. BMJ. 1988 Jul 16;297(6642):156–156. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6642.156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mulrow C. D., Thacker S. B., Pugh J. A. A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Ann Intern Med. 1988 Apr;108(4):613–615. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-108-4-613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Narine L., Yee D. S., Einarson T. R., Ilersich A. L. Quality of abstracts of original research articles in CMAJ in 1989. CMAJ. 1991 Feb 15;144(4):449–453. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pitkin R. M. The importance of the abstract. Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Aug;70(2):267–267. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rennie D., Glass R. M. Structuring abstracts to make them more informative. JAMA. 1991 Jul 3;266(1):116–117. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Soffer A. Abstracts of clinical investigations. A new and standardized format. Chest. 1987 Sep;92(3):389–390. doi: 10.1378/chest.92.3.389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Squires B. P. Structured abstracts of original research and review articles. CMAJ. 1990 Oct 1;143(7):619–622. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES