This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Dermatologic Disorders  • Dermatologic Disorders, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Alain Dupuy, MD; Kiarash Khosrotehrani, MD; Céleste Lebbé, MD, PhD; Michel Rybojad, MD; Patrice Morel, MD

Arch Dermatol. 2003;139:589-593.

Background  Structured abstracts have been widely adopted in medical journals, with little demonstration of their superiority over unstructured abstracts.

Objectives  To compare abstract quality among 3 clinical dermatology journals and to compare the quality of structured and unstructured abstracts within those journals.

Design and Data Sources  Abstracts of a random sample of clinical studies (case reports, case series, and reviews excluded) published in 2000 in the Archives of Dermatology, The British Journal of Dermatology, and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology were evaluated. Each abstract was rated by 2 independent investigators, using a 30-item quality scale divided into 8 categories (objective, design, setting, subjects, intervention, measurement of variables, results, and conclusions). Items applicable to the study and present in the main text of the article were rated as being present or absent from the abstract. A global quality score (range, 0-1) for each abstract was established by calculating the proportion of criteria among the eligible criteria that was rated as being present. A score was also calculated for each category. Interrater agreement was assessed with a statistic. Mean ± SD scores were compared among journals and between formats (structured vs unstructured) using analysis of variance.

Main Outcome Measures  Mean quality scores of abstracts by journal and by format.

Results  Interrater agreement was good ( = 0.71). Mean ± SD quality scores of abstracts were significantly different among journals (Archives of Dermatology, 0.78 ± 0.07; The British Journal of Dermatology, 0.67 ± 0.17; and Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 0.64 ± 0.15; P = .045) and between formats (structured, 0.71 ± 0.11; and unstructured, 0.56 ± 0.18; P = .002). The setting category had the lowest scores.

Conclusions  The quality of abstracts differed across the 3 tested journals. Unstructured abstracts were demonstrated to be of lower quality compared with structured abstracts and may account for the differences in quality scores among the journals. The structured format should be more widely adopted in dermatology journals.

From the Service de Dermatologie, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts
Hopewell et al.
Journal of Information Science 2008;34:162-173.
ABSTRACT  

Abstracts: problems classified from the user perspective
Montesi and Urdiciain
Journal of Information Science 2005;31:515-526.
ABSTRACT  

Quality of Abstracts of Papers Reporting Original Cost-Effectiveness Analyses
Rosen et al.
Med Decis Making 2005;25:424-428.
ABSTRACT  

Accuracy of Abstracts for Original Research Articles in Pharmacy Journals
Ward et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2004;38:1173-1177.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Addressing the Limitations of Structured Abstracts
The Editors
ANN INTERN MED 2004;140:480-481.
FULL TEXT