Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles.

CONTEXT: The section of a research article most likely to be read is the abstract, and therefore it is particularly important that the abstract reflect the article faithfully. OBJECTIVE: To assess abstracts accompanying research articles published in 6 medical journals with respect to whether data in the abstract could be verified in the article itself. DESIGN: Analysis of simple random samples of 44 articles and their accompanying abstracts published during 1 year(July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997) in each of 5 major general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) and a consecutive sample of 44 articles published during 15 months (July 1, 1996-August 15, 1997) in the CMAJ. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Abstracts were considered deficient if they contained data that were either inconsistent with corresponding data in the article's body (including tables and figures) or not found in the body at all. RESULTS: The proportion of deficient abstracts varied widely (18%-68%) and to a statistically significant degree (P<.001) among the 6 journals studied. CONCLUSIONS: Data in the abstract that are inconsistent with or absent from the article's body are common, even in large-circulation general medical journals.

Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: The most-read section of a research article is the abstract, and therefore it is especially important that the abstract be accurate. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that providing authors with specific instructions about abstract accuracy will result in improved accuracy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention specifying 3 types of common defects in abstracts of articles that had been reviewed and were being returned to the authors with an invitation to revise. MEAN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of abstracts containing 1 or more of the following defects: inconsistency in data between abstract and body of manuscript (text, tables, and figures), data or other information given in abstract but not in body, and/or conclusions not justified by information in the abstract. RESULTS: Of 250 manuscripts randomized, 13 were never revised and 34 were lost to follow-up, leaving a final comparison between 89 in the intervention group and 114 in the control group. Abstracts were defective in 25 (28%) and 30 (26%) cases, respectively (P=.78). Among 55 defective abstracts, 28 (51%) had inconsistencies, 16 (29%) contained data not present in the body, 8 (15%) had both types of defects, and 3 (5%) contained unjustified conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Defects in abstracts, particularly inconsistencies between abstract and body and the presentation of data in abstract but not in body, occur frequently. Specific instructions to authors who are revising their manuscripts are ineffective in lowering this rate. Journals should include in their editing processes specific and detailed attention to abstracts.