Froom P, Froom J
Institute of Workers Health and Rehabilitation, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Jul;46(7):591-4. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90029-z.
This study was carried out to determine if the content of structured abstracts conforms with recommendations of the Ad Hoc Working Group for the critical appraisal of the medical literature as adopted by the Annals of Internal Medicine. The study design was a survey. All articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 1991, excluding editorials, case-reports, literature reviews, decision analysis, studies in medical education, descriptive studies of clinical and basic phenomena, and papers lacking a structured abstract, were studied. Of a total of 150 articles, 20 were excluded. The abstract and text of each article were assessed for the presence of the following items; patient selection criteria, statements concerning extrapolation of findings, need for further study, and whether or not the information should be used now. Number of refusers, drop outs and reason(s) for drop outs were assessed for intervention and prospective cohort studies only. Deficiencies of assessed items were noted in both abstracts and texts. For abstracts, patient selection criteria, numbers of refusers, number of drop outs and reason(s) for drop outs were reported in 44.6% (58/130), 3.1% (4/130), 16.9% (14/83) and 2.4% (2/83) respectively. These items were reported more frequently in the texts 87.7% (114/130), 9.2% (12/130), 60.2% (50/83) and 37.3% (31/83) respectively (p < 0.05). Statements concerning extrapolation of findings, need for further study and use of information now were also more frequent in texts than abstracts (p < 0.0001). A large number of structured abstracts published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 1991, lack information recommended by the Ad Hoc Working Group. Our findings should not be extrapolated to other journals requiring structured abstracts.
本研究旨在确定结构化摘要的内容是否符合《内科学年鉴》所采用的医学文献批判性评价特设工作组的建议。研究设计为一项调查。对1991年发表在《内科学年鉴》上的所有文章进行研究，不包括社论、病例报告、文献综述、决策分析、医学教育研究、临床和基础现象的描述性研究以及缺乏结构化摘要的论文。在总共150篇文章中，排除了20篇。对每篇文章的摘要和正文评估以下项目的存在情况：患者选择标准、关于研究结果外推的陈述、进一步研究的必要性以及现在是否应使用该信息。仅对干预性研究和前瞻性队列研究评估拒绝者数量、退出者数量及退出原因。在摘要和正文中均注意到评估项目的不足之处。对于摘要，患者选择标准、拒绝者数量、退出者数量及退出原因的报告率分别为44.6%（58/130）、3.1%（4/130）、16.9%（14/83）和2.4%（2/83）。这些项目在正文中的报告频率分别更高，为87.7%（114/130）、9.2%（12/130）、60.2%（50/83）和37.3%（31/83）（p<0.05）。关于研究结果外推、进一步研究的必要性以及现在使用信息的陈述在正文中也比摘要中更频繁（p<0.0001）。1991年发表在《内科学年鉴》上的大量结构化摘要缺乏特设工作组推荐的信息。我们的研究结果不应外推至其他要求结构化摘要的期刊。
