Presentation Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts

Froom, Paul; Froom, Paul

doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90029-z

Cited by 81 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The need for accurate abstract information is highlighted by the fact that 50% of chapters in major orthopaedic textbooks contain references to abstracts presented at meetings [1]. However, abstracts do not always contain the information necessary for readers to assess their validity [6,18,24]. The peer-review process helps ensure information accepted in the literature is based on data that have been collected and meticulously analyzed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

DeMola

Hill

Rogers

et al. 2008

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many shoulder and elbow abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting are cited in the orthopaedic literature or are used to guide orthopaedic practice, but not all of these abstracts are submitted, survive peer review, or eventually are published. Presuming unpublished works have not been scientifically confirmed, one could question whether it is academically responsible to cite abstracts presented at the AAOS before they are peer-reviewed and published. To partly address this issue we determined the peer-reviewed publication rate for 558 abstracts (233 papers and 325 posters) presented at the shoulder and elbow sessions of the AAOS from 1999 to 2004. In April 2007, we searched the computerized database MEDLINE 1 and PubMed 1 for published articles based on these abstracts. We examined the published articles to assess publication rate, time to publication, change in contents, change in authors, and change in conclusions of abstracts. The overall publication rate in peer-reviewed journals was 58% (321 of 558), similar to other orthopaedic meetings and medical disciplines. We believe it is unacceptable to cite shoulder and elbow abstracts submitted to the AAOS because only slightly more than ½ (58%) of them are authenticated scientifically.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

DeMola

Hill

Rogers

et al. 2008

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Few studies have compared the quality of structured and unstructured 12 reported that rewritten abstracts in a structured format were more informative than original unstructured ones. Other studies 8,[13][14][15] have assessed abstract quality, with no direct comparison of structured and unstructured abstracts. Addressing the second point made by opponents, regarding abstract length, we found that structured abstracts were longer than unstructured ones.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of Abstracts in 3 Clinical Dermatology Journals

Dupuy

Khosrotehrani²,

Lebbe³

et al. 2003

Arch Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, the validity of research presented during such events has been a matter of concern. Presentations are usually chosen on the basis of submitted abstracts, which may not contain sufficient information to assess the validity of the research (1,2). It is often assumed that information contained in an abstract presentation will eventually be published in full manuscript form in a peer-reviewed journal as this validates the significance of the data and methods applied.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%