Structured abstracts: Do they improve the quality of information in abstracts?

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.023

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Volume 130, Issue 4, October 2006, Pages 523-530

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.023 Get rights and content

Introduction: This retrospective observational study was designed to assess the impact on quality of changing from unstructured to structured abstract format. Six dental journals, 3 that adopted structured abstracts and 3 with unstructured abstracts, were used. Methods: One hundred abstracts from original articles, published between January 1995 and December 1998, were selected from each journal. A 29-question checklist was developed and used to assess the quality of the information in the abstracts. Results: The mean score for abstracts published in all journal was 53.9% (SD 11.5; 95% CI 52.8%, 54.8%). There was no statistically significant difference between the scores of the first 50 abstracts and the second 50 abstracts from any journals with unstructured abstracts (P = .19-.80). The mean score of the second 50 abstracts from journals that adopted the structured abstract format was significantly higher than scores from journals with unchanged formats (P ≤.001). Conclusions: Structured abstracts provide higher-quality information. Journal editors should be encouraged to use a structured abstract format.

Section snippets

Material and methods

Abstracts from articles published in 6 dental journals between January 1995 and December 1998 were assessed. This period was chosen so that articles published in the issues a year before and a year after the change in format were included so that changes over time could also be examined.

The journals chosen included 3 that had adopted structured abstracts and 3 that had continued to use unstructured abstracts in this period. There were 3 specialist orthodontic journals (JO, European Journal of

Results

Three pilot studies, involving 36 abstracts, were carried out before a reliable scoring system was achieved. Agreement was 75% in the first pilot study, 85% in the second, and 92%, with a kappa statistic of 0.87, in the third. These percentages suggested that the level of agreement for the third version of the scoring sheet, and definitions and criteria, was Almost Perfect, so this version was used for the main study.

The mean percentage agreement for intraexaminer reliability of the scoring

Discussion

A total of 1702 abstracts were identified by hand searching the 6 chosen journals. Overall, all journals, except the JDR, improved their mean scores during the period examined in this study but this was statistically significant only in the journals that adopted the structured abstract format—BDJ, CPJ, and JO.

This was a retrospective study, which, by its nature, was open to bias. However, all articles were identified by hand searching, and any that were unavailable on the first search were

Conclusions

1
The quality of information in the abstract was greater in journals that used a structured format than in those that used an unstructured format.
2
The quality of information in the abstracts increased when a journal changed to a structured format.
3
The null hypothesis was therefore rejected, and we accepted the alternative hypothesis and concluded that there is a significant difference in the quality of information in structured abstracts compared with unstructured abstracts.

References (16)

D.L. Turpin
Consensus builds for evidence-based methods
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2004)
J.P. Fricker
A new self-curing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets in vivo
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1998)
R.M. Pitkin et al.
Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions?
JAMA
(1998)
K. Dickersin et al.
Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews
BMJ
(1994)
A proposal for more informative abstracts
Ann Intern Med
(1987)
R.B. Haynes et al.
More informative abstracts revisited
Ann Intern Med
(1990)
C.D. Mulrow et al.
A proposal for more informative abstracts in review articles
Ann Intern Med
(1988)
A. Taddio 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
CMAJ
(1994)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (56)

Enhancing the quality of reporting of orthodontic clinical research
2024, Seminars in Orthodontics
Research reports need to provide complete, accurate, and transparent information to allow readers to easily understand and critically assess the study results. Poor reporting makes studies unable to be synthesized in systematic reviews, fail to inform clinical practice, and compromise evidence-based clinical decision making. Evidence suggested the reporting quality of orthodontic clinical studies was poor, which caused a large amount of avoidable research waste. Reporting guidelines (RGs) are developed to guide and standardize the reporting of specific study types and improve their reporting quality. This article introduces the commonly used RGs in orthodontic clinical studies and illustrates the relationship between the existing RGs and their extensions. The majority of extensions are those to the CONSORT and PRISMA guidelines. The EQUATOR Network is an online library of RGs and education resources, and authors can use it to find appropriate RGs. Although a large number of RGs and extensions have been published, involving various study types, the reporting quality of orthodontic clinical studies still needs to be improved. Active strategies to strengthen the implementation of RGs are necessary to fill the gaps between RG publication and the quality improvement of studies. Other issues including selective reporting and spin, structure format of abstracts, and artificial intelligence in reporting are also discussed. Language models such as ChatGPT have largely changed scientific research and reporting in the era of artificial intelligence. Authors are strongly recommended to always be transparent in reporting and responsible for the content of their studies.
Evaluation of Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Abstracts for Pediatric Strabismus Therapies
2023, American Journal of Ophthalmology
This study investigates the quality of systematic review abstracts through evaluation of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) abstract guideline adherence, Assessment for Multiple Systematic Reviews Tool (AMSTAR) quality rating, spin, abstract word count, and abstract structure.
Cross-sectional study.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the CEV@US database for articles related to pediatric strabismus. Inclusion criteria regarding pediatric strabismus studies were required to be in English, to be systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, and to include patients less than 18 years of age. From the search records, 2 investigators independently screened titles and abstracts to locate eligible reviews and to extract study characteristics using AMSTAR-2 and pilot-tested Google forms.
Searches retrieved 545 studies, of which 14 were eligible for data extraction. We found 1 form of spin in 1 abstract (of 14; 7.14%) of our included studies. In all, 11 of 13 (84.62%) studies failed to mention risk of bias assessment. There was no significant association between abstract characteristics and quality of the study. We found a significant correlation between AMSTAR-2 rating and PRISMA completion.
Overall, a positive finding was that no spin was found within the abstracts of articles for pediatric strabismus therapies. PRISMA-A adherence was strongly associated with higher-quality studies and should be considered for all systematic reviews in ophthalmology. Clinical research of pediatric strabismus is significantly limited in the number of studies present, as evidenced by our data. To improve the quality of abstract reporting, efforts from authors and journals are needed.
Reporting guidelines for in-silico studies using finite element analysis in medicine (RIFEM)
2022, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
Citation Excerpt :
Therefore, many readers interpret the results by reading the abstract only and applying it in their clinical practise [10]. A structured abstract quickly conveys necessary information with high quality as compared to non-structured abstract [11]. Therefore, we recommend that the abstract is covered under the headings- Study background/objective, Methods, Results, Conclusion and/or Clinical relevance.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no reporting guidelines for design, conduct and reporting of Finite Element studies in health sciences. We intend to propose specific and detailed guidelines for reporting these studies.
After recognizing the need to have uniform guidelines for reporting of finite element analysis in medicine and dentistry, a group of 5 researchers working on FEA as their research area met in the summer of 2020 and drafted the methodology for the development of such guidelines. Each researcher individually made a list of major headings required for reporting these studies and met again in September 2020 to finalize the domains. Subsequently, sub headings and details were charted. The draft list of items for reporting the guidelines were presented to a larger team of 15 experts and some changes were further made based on their inputs.
The guidelines entail seven major domains and their sub-domains, including parameters for model structure, segmentation, mesh structure, force application and model validation, etc. This checklist aims to improvise the reporting and consistency of FEA studies.
We hope that the usage and adoption of these guidelines by the scientific community would result in more thoughtful and uniform documentation. Also, the confidence in the results would be enhanced through model reproducibility, reusability and accountability. The proposed guidelines were named as ‘Reporting of in-silico studies using finite element analysis in medicine’ and the term ‘RIFEM’ was used as acronym.
Evaluation of reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials regarding patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement for abstracts
2022, International Journal of Infectious Diseases
To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts regarding patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to analyze the factors influencing the quality.
The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs on patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT statement for abstracts was used to evaluate the reporting quality of RCT abstracts.
A total of 53 RCT abstracts were included. The CONSORT statement for abstracts showed that the average reporting rate of all items was 50.2%. The items with a lower reporting quality were mainly the trial design and the details of randomization and blinding (<10%). The mean overall adherence score across all studies was 8.68 ± 2.69 (range 4–13.5). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that the higher reporting scores were associated with higher journal impact factor (P < 0.01), international collaboration (P = 0.04), and structured abstract format (P < 0.01).
Although many RCTs on patients with COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall quality of reporting in the included RCT abstracts was suboptimal, thus diminishing their potential usefulness, and this may mislead clinical decision-making. In order to improve the reporting quality, it is necessary to promote and actively apply the CONSORT statement for abstracts.
A comprehensive quality analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials of Asian ginseng and American ginseng based on the CONSORT guideline
2022, Journal of Ginseng Research
Ginseng is an international herb that has been used for thousands of years. Two species most commonly applied and investigated in the ginseng family are Asian ginseng and American ginseng. The number of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) has conspicuously increased, driven by the rapid development of ginseng. However, the reporting of RCT items of ginseng is deficient because of different trial designs and reporting formats, which is a challenge for researchers who are looking for the data with high quality and reliability. Thus, this study focused on providing an extensive analysis of these two species and examined the quality of the RCTs, based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline. Ninety-one RCTs conducted from 1980 to 2019 that were related to Asian ginseng and American ginseng used singly met our inclusion criteria. We found that the reporting quality of the two species has improved during the past 40 years. Publication date and sample size were significantly associated with the reporting quality. Rigorous RCTs designed for the species of ginseng are warranted, which can shed light on product research and development of ginseng in the future.
Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in operative dentistry: An assessment using the PRISMA for Abstracts guidelines
2020, Journal of Dentistry
To assess and compare the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in operative dentistry published before and after the release of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts (PRISMA-A), and to identify factors associated with reporting quality.
PubMed was searched for abstracts published during 2010–2012 (Pre-PRISMA period) and 2017–2019 (Post-PRISMA period). Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 13-item PRSIMA-A checklist. Risk ratio (RR) was used to compare the adequate reporting rate of each item between the two periods. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality.
A total of 160 abstracts were included and assessed. Only four items (‘objective’, ‘results of main outcomes’, ‘description of the effect’ and ‘interpretation’) were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75 %). According to the multivariable analysis, greater word count (P = 0.001), being published in the Post-PRISMA period (P = 0.025) and geographic origin from Asia (P = 0.025) or South America (P = 0.015) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.
The reporting quality of SR abstracts in operative dentistry had improved significantly after the publication of PRISMA-A, but was still suboptimal. Researchers, reviewers and journal editors in operative dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-A checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of SR abstracts.

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Original articleStructured abstracts: Do they improve the quality of information in abstracts?

Section snippets

Material and methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop

Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions?

JAMA

Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews

BMJ

A proposal for more informative abstracts

Ann Intern Med

More informative abstracts revisited

Ann Intern Med

A proposal for more informative abstracts in review articles

Ann Intern Med

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

CMAJ

Original article
Structured abstracts: Do they improve the quality of information in abstracts?