More Informative Abstracts Revisited

Haynes, R. Brian; Mulrow, Cynthia D.; Huth, Edward J.; Altman, Douglas G.; Gardner, M. J.

doi:10.1597/1545-1569-33.1.1

Cited by 69 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…"10 years' use of HRT ͓hormone replacement therapy͔ is estimated to result in five (95% CI 3-7) additional breast cancers per 1000 users of oestrogen-only preparations and 19 [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] additional cancers per 1000 users of oestrogen-progestagen combinations." 163 …”

Section: (C) If Relevant Consider Translating Estimates Of Relativmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies.The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers.This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research. (Epidemiology 2007;18: 805-835) R ational health care practices require knowledge about the etiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of diseases. Randomized trials provide valuable evidence about treatments and other interventions. However, much of clinical or public health knowledge comes from observational research. 1 About nine of ten research papers published in clinical speciality journals describe observational research. 2,3 The STROBE StatementReporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation. 4,5 To improve the reporting of observational research, we developed a checklist of items that should be addressed: the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement (Table 1). Items relate to title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. The STROBE Statement has recently been published in several journals. 6 Our aim is to ensure clear presentation of what was planned, done, and found in an observational study. We stress that the recommendations are not prescriptions for setting up or conducting studies, nor do they dictate methodology or mandate a uniform presentation.STROBE provides general reporting recommendations for descriptive observational studies and studies that investigate 805associations between expos...

show abstract

Section: (C) If Relevant Consider Translating Estimates Of Relativmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We recorded whether a summary of follow-up was men-tioned and whether and how univariate and multivariate analyses were reported. None of the journals in the study used structured abstracts (Haynes et al, 1990) at the time of the review.…”

Section: Abstractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals

Altman

Stavola²,

Love³

et al. 1995

Br J Cancer

368

296

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Survival analysis has found widespread applications in medicine in the last 10-15 years. However, there has been no published review of the use and presentation of survival analyses. We have carried out a systematic review of the research papers published between October and December 1991 in five clinical oncology journals. A total of 132 papers were reviewed. We looked at several aspects of study design, data handling, analysis and presentation of the results. We found that almost half of the papers did not give any summary of length of follow-up; that in 62% of papers at least one end point was not clearly defined; and that both logrank and multivariate analyses were frequently reported at most only as P-values [63/84 (75%) Survival analysis has found widespread applications in medicine in the last 10-15 years (Andersen, 1991), particularly in clinical oncology, and its correct application and presentation is critically relevant for much of the cancer literature. Although the use of statistical methods in medicine has been subjected to much scrutiny (see Altman, 1982Altman, , 1991, we believe that there has not been any published review of the use of survival analysis methods in medical journals. Hence, we have carried out a systematic review of the appropriateness of the application and presentation of survival analyses in clinical oncology journals. We have focused on the size of the studies being published, the adequacy of the description of the data analysed (with particular interest given to the length and quality of follow-up and the clarity of the end points of interest) and the choice and quality of univariate, multivariate and graphical analyses. In the light of disappointing findings, we discuss existing guidelines and present some new guidelines aimed in particular at presentation. MethodsWe examined all papers published in British Journal of Cancer, European Journal of Cancer, Journal of Clinical Oncology and American Journal of Clinical Oncology between October and December 1991 which included analyses of survival data. There were 132 papers which reported at least one of the following: Kaplan-Meier or actuarial survival curves; logrank or related tests; parametric or semiparametric survival analyses. Those papers with survival data which did not present any of these analyses, and thus were not included, were largely phase I or II clinical trials.The 132 papers were reviewed using a standard form that had been tested in a small pilot study of 20 papers which were read by all four authors. When the form was finalised each paper was read by two of the authors according to a balanced randomisation scheme. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved in paired discussions and by discussion between all four reviewers on the rare occasions when it was necessary.The assessment form included separate sections relating to distinct aspects of each paper. It also included the time taken by each author to extract the information from the paper onto the form as an indication of the clarity of each...

show abstract

“…As Haynes et al stated: structured abstracts have both been complimented and criticized for making reading the rest of an article super¯uous. 9 It has been claimed that with the full-text availability of journals (resulting from larger and cheaper storage capability of computers), full-text searching of text, rather than abstract searching, is feasible. It may be attractive to rely on the full text of papers to search for those applicable to a particular clinical or research question.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, structured abstracts were expected to facilitate peer review of manuscripts, and help in the accurate indexing and retrieval of reports. 7,9,10 Structured abstracts have indeed been found to be more informative; 11 ± 13 to a degree this is due to the fact that they are longer (on average) than unstructured ones. 11,14 However, they also may be more readable, 11,15 and produce more indexing terms, which makes it easier to retrieve them from electronic data bases such as Medline and Embase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching the literature for information on traumatic spinal cord injury: the usefulness of abstracts

Dijkers

2003

Spinal Cord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study design: Systematic review of abstracts of published papers presumed to contain information on chronic pain in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). Objectives: To determine to what degree papers on SCI are abstracted in such a way that they can be retrieved, and evaluated as to the paper's applicability to a reader's questions. Setting: US -academic department of rehabilitation medicine. Methods: 868 abstracts published in Medline were independently examined by two out of 13 screeners, who answered four questions on the subjects and nature of the paper with`Yes', No' or`insu cient information'. Frequency of ratings`insu cient information', and screener agreement were evaluated as a ected by screener and abstract/paper characteristics. Results: Screeners could not determine whether the paper dealt with persons with traumatic SCI for 37% of abstracts; whether chronic pain was a topic could not be determined in 18%. Physicians were less willing than other disciplines to assign`insu cient information'. Screener agreement was better than chance, but not at the level suggested for quality measurement. Screener discipline and task experience did not make a di erence, nor did abstract length, structure, or decade of publication of the paper. Conclusion: Authors need to improve the quality of abstracts to make retrieval and screening of relevant papers more e ective and e cient.

show abstract

More Informative Abstracts Revisited

Cited by 69 publications

References 32 publications

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals

Searching the literature for information on traumatic spinal cord injury: the usefulness of abstracts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About