International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Prague, CZE, 1997/09.
Context. - The most-read section of a research article is the abstract, and therefore it is especially important that the abstract be accurate.
- To test the hypothesis that providing authors with specific instructions about abstract accuracy will result in improved accuracy.
- Randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention specifying 3 types of common defects in abstracts of articles that had been reviewed and were being returned to the authors with an invitation to revise.
- Proportion of abstracts containing 1 or more of the following defects : inconsistency in data between abstract and body of manuscript (text, tables, and figures), data or other information given in abstract but not in body, and/or conclusions not justified by information in the abstract.
- Of 250 manuscripts randomized, 13 were never revised and 34 were lost to follow-up, leaving a final comparison between 89 in the intervention group and 114 in the control group.
Abstracts were defective in 25 (28%) and 30 (26%) cases, respectively (P=78).
Among 55 defective abstracts, 28 (51%) had inconsistencies, 16 (29%) contained data not present in the body, 8 (15%) had both types of defects, and 3 (5%) contained unjustified conclusions.
- Defects in abstracts, particularly inconsistencies between abstract and body and the presentation of data in abstract but not in body, occur frequently. (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Article, Médecine, Résumé, Document publié, Qualité, Recommandation, Editeur, Exploration, Influence, Homme, Littérature scientifique
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Article, Medicine, Abstract, Published document, Quality, Recommendation, Publisher, Exploration, Influence, Human, Scientific literature
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 98-0445281
Code Inist : 002B30A09. Création : 25/01/1999.