PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2255376

[The structured summary: a tool for reader and author].

M L Comans·A J Overbeke
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine and to compare the information contained in structured abstracts in original articles in Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), British Medical Journal (BMJ), New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and of abstracts that have been published in Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (NTvG). SETTING: Editorial office NTvG. DESIGN: Descriptive. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Critical reading of 15 original articles of AIM (5), BMJ (5) and NEJM (5) in 5 consecutive issues starting from 1 March 1990 and all original articles of 6 consecutive issues of NTvG starting from 7 april 1990. According to the criteria of the 'ad hoc working group for critical appraisal of the medical literature' the amount of information in all foreign abstracts and 10 selected abstracts of NTvG were determined. The authors made structured abstracts of all read articles of NTvG. RESULTS: Structured abstracts of AIM, BMJ and NEJM are clear and detailed. However information about key sociodemographic features of patients, their selection and the way of statistical analysis of the results was often missing. In NTvG articles essential information was lacking with respect to objective, design, setting of the study, sociodemographic features of patients, and patients and methods. Structured abstracts of articles in NTvG take more space: an average of 266 instead of 164 words. CONCLUSION: Structured abstracts take more space but are more informative. Authors of original articles in NTvG are advised to prepare structured abstracts. Editors and peer reviewers should ascertain that no essential information is lacking.

Explore related subjects

Abstracting and IndexingEvaluation Studies as TopicPeriodicals as TopicWritingJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M L Comans, A J Overbeke. 1990-12-01. [The structured summary: a tool for reader and author].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2255376/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1992

The comprehensiveness of Medline and Embase computer searches. Searches for controlled trials of homoeopathy, ascorbic acid for common cold and ginkgo biloba for cerebral insufficiency and intermittent claudication.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comprehensiveness of Medline and Embase computer searches for controlled trials. DESIGN: Comparison of articles found after an exhaustive search of the literature with the yield of a Medline or Embase search. This was performed for controlled clinical trials on the efficacy of three interventions: homoeopathy, ascorbic acid for common cold, and ginkgo biloba for intermittent claudication and cerebral insufficiency. The number of controlled trials found by exhaustive search of the literature was 107, 61 and 45, respectively. RESULTS: For homoeopathy, ascorbic acid and ginkgo the proportion of all trials found by Medline was 17%, 36% and 31% respectively and for Embase 13%, 25% and 58% respectively. After checking of the references in the Medline articles 44%, 79% and 76% of all trials were identified. After checking of the references in the Embase articles 42%, 72% and 93% of all trials were identified. About 20% of the articles was not correctly indexed. Of the best trials 68%, 91% and 83% could be found with Medline and 55%, 82% and 92% of the best trials were identified through Embase. CONCLUSIONS: For the topics mentioned, Medline and Embase searches are sufficient to get an impression of the evidence from controlled trials, but only if references in the articles are followed for further evidence. If one wants to get a more complete picture, additional search strategies make sense. Of course, this picture may be different for other topics.

Abstracting and Indexing↗