| |
JAMA. 1999 (March 24/31);281:1110-1111.
Accuracy of Data in Abstracts of Published
Research Articles.
Roy M. Pitkin, Mary Ann Branagan, Leon F. Burmeister. 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.
DESING: 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.
|