Department of Otolaryngology, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Box 126, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010 Feb;142(2):225-30. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2009.10.051.
Although published abstracts have the advantage of being prominent and concise, their quality in the otolaryngology literature has not been studied. We sought to understand the limitations of relying on abstracts as the sole source of information about published research. In addition, we sought to identify specific opportunities for improving the quality of published articles and their associated abstracts.
Studies of original research published in four major otolaryngology journals from January 2008 to June 2008 were included. Each study article and abstract was reviewed separately for 12 domains relating to study design, results, and conclusions. Good inter-rater reliability was established as part of the validation process.
Four hundred eighteen articles were identified for study, which included 75 percent clinical research and 25 percent basic science. The most common omissions in the abstract when compared with the complete article were study limitations (91% left out of abstract), geographic location (79%), confidence intervals (75%), dropouts or losses (62%), and harms and adverse events (44%). Conversely, the abstract often included information about research design (99%), sample size (92%), source of the data (81%), and quantitative results (67%). These results did not differ significantly with regard to article type, journal, or level of evidence.
Readers of otolaryngology journals may form biased or inappropriate conclusions if they read only the abstract of a study, particularly with regard to study limitations, adverse events, and subject dropouts or losses. These results highlight the perils of using the abstract as a sole source of information.
尽管已发表的摘要具有突出和简洁的优点，但尚未对耳鼻喉科学文献中的摘要质量进行研究。我们旨在了解仅依靠摘要作为已发表研究信息的唯一来源的局限性。此外，我们还试图确定提高已发表文章及其相关摘要质量的具体机会。
纳入了 2008 年 1 月至 2008 年 6 月期间在四家主要耳鼻喉科杂志上发表的原始研究的研究。分别对每篇研究文章和摘要进行了 12 个领域的审查，这些领域与研究设计、结果和结论有关。作为验证过程的一部分，确立了良好的组内可靠性。
共确定了 418 篇文章进行研究，其中包括 75%的临床研究和 25%的基础科学研究。与完整文章相比，摘要中最常见的遗漏包括研究局限性（91%未包含在摘要中）、地理位置（79%）、置信区间（75%）、脱落或损失（62%）以及危害和不良事件（44%）。相反，摘要通常包括研究设计（99%）、样本量（92%）、数据来源（81%）和定量结果（67%）的信息。这些结果在文章类型、期刊或证据水平方面没有明显差异。
如果读者仅阅读研究的摘要，可能会形成有偏见或不恰当的结论，特别是在研究局限性、不良事件以及研究对象脱落或损失方面。这些结果突出了仅使用摘要作为唯一信息来源的风险。
