Fontelo Paul, Gavino Alex, Sarmiento Raymond Francis
Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, U.S. National Library of Medicine, , Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Evid Based Med. 2013 Dec;18(6):207-11. doi: 10.1136/eb-2013-101272. Epub 2013 Jun 20.
The abstract is the most frequently read section of a research article. The use of 'Consensus Abstracts', a clinician-oriented web application formatted for mobile devices to search MEDLINE/PubMed, for informing clinical decisions was proposed recently; however, inaccuracies between abstracts and the full-text article have been shown. Efforts have been made to improve quality.
We compared data in 60 recent-structured abstracts and full-text articles from six highly read medical journals.
Data inaccuracies were identified and then classified as either clinically significant or not significant. Data inaccuracies were observed in 53.33% of articles ranging from 3.33% to 45% based on the IMRAD format sections. The Results section showed the highest discrepancies (45%) although these were deemed to be mostly not significant clinically except in one. The two most common discrepancies were mismatched numbers or percentages (11.67%) and numerical data or calculations found in structured abstracts but not mentioned in the full text (40%). There was no significant relationship between journals and the presence of discrepancies (Fisher's exact p value =0.3405). Although we found a high percentage of inaccuracy between structured abstracts and full-text articles, these were not significant clinically.
The inaccuracies do not seem to affect the conclusion and interpretation overall. Structured abstracts appear to be informative and may be useful to practitioners as a resource for guiding clinical decisions.
摘要为科研论文中阅读频率最高的部分。最近有人提出使用“共识摘要”，这是一种面向临床医生的、专为移动设备格式化的网络应用程序，用于检索MEDLINE/PubMed以辅助临床决策；然而，摘要与全文之间存在不准确之处已得到证实。人们已做出努力来提高质量。
我们比较了最近60篇来自六种高阅读量医学期刊的结构化摘要和全文中的数据。
识别出数据不准确之处，然后将其分类为具有临床意义或无临床意义。在53.33%的文章中观察到数据不准确，根据IMRAD格式部分，不准确比例在3.33%至45%之间。结果部分的差异最大（45%），不过除了一篇文章外，这些差异在临床上大多被认为无显著意义。两种最常见的差异是数字或百分比不匹配（11.67%）以及结构化摘要中出现但全文未提及的数值数据或计算（40%）。期刊与差异的存在之间无显著关系（Fisher精确p值=0.3405）。虽然我们发现结构化摘要与全文之间存在较高比例的不准确，但这些在临床上并无显著意义。
这些不准确似乎并未整体影响结论和解读。结构化摘要似乎具有信息价值，可能对从业者作为指导临床决策的资源有用。
