Tanya
I include an excerpt from a forthcoming article on evidence based
information practice with refs:
" Given evidence based practice's focus on research methodology it is
not surprising to see the practitioners of evidence based librarianship
calling for the use of structured abstracts (78) as already widely
provided in medical journals (79). Such abstracts are structured around
such pre-specified sections as, subjects, intervention, outcomes,
methods, results and conclusions. They have been shown to improve
retrieval (80) and to enable rapid assimilation. Research commissioned
by the British Library (81) suggests that structured abstracts are
feasible for the research literature of social sciences, including
librarianship. Whilst not necessarily more accurate than traditional
abstracts, they are significantly longer, more readable and more
informative (82, 83). Fears that they take up too much space appear
misplaced (84) and there is growing support for their more widespread
introduction (85, 86)".
78. BAYLEY, L. and ELDREDGE, J. The structured abstract: an essential
tool for researchers. Hypothesis, 17 (1), 2003, 1,11-13.
79. AD HOC WORKING GROUP FOR CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE MEDICAL
LITERATURE. A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical
articles. Annals of Internal Medicine, 106(4), 1987, 598-604.
80. BOOTH, A. and O'ROURKE, A.J. The value of structured abstracts in
information retrieval from MEDLINE. Health Libraries Review, 14(3),
1997, 157-166.
81. HARTLEY, J. Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social
science journals? Learned Publishing, 10(4), 1997, 313-17.
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000589/00/199801003.html
82. HARTLEY, J. Are structured abstracts more or less accurate than
traditional ones? A study in the psychological literature Journal of
Information Science, 26(4), 2000, 273-77.
83. HARTLEY, J. Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in
psychology: the case for structure. Science Communication, 24(3), 2003,
366-79
84. HARTLEY, J. Do structured abstracts take more space? And does it
matter? Journal of Information Science, 28(5), 2002, 417-22.
85. TAYLOR, B.J., DEMPSTER, M. and DONNELLY, M. Hidden gems:
systematically searching electronic databases for publications for
social work and social care. British Journal of Social Work, 33(4),
2003, 423-39.
86. GRAYSON, L and GOMERSALL, A. A difficult business: finding the
evidence for social science reviews. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based
Policy and Practice, Department of Politics, Queen Mary, University of
London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, 2003. 23pp (Working Paper 19)
http://www.evidencenetwork.org/Documents/wp19.pdf
With regard to quality see:
Wager E, Middleton P. Technical editing of research reports in
biomedical journals (Cochrane Methodology Review). In: The Cochrane
Library, Issue 2, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
MR000002
AND:
Reporting of Randomized Clinical Trial Descriptors and Use of Structured
Abstracts Roberta W. Scherer, PhD; Barbara Crawley, MS
JAMA. 1998;280:269-272.
Context.- Structured abstracts, that is, abstracts that describe a study
using requisite content headings, provide more informative content.
Concomitant reporting in the text of the report might improve with
structured abstract use because of increased awareness by authors or
editors of important study areas associated with content headings.
Objective.- To assess whether structured abstract use is associated with
improved reporting of randomized clinical trials.
Design and Setting.- Survey of trial reports published the year
preceding, of, and following new use of structured abstracts, found by
hand searching Archives of Ophthalmology (1992-1994) and Ophthalmology
(1991-1993), as well as trial reports published concurrently without
change in abstract format (American Journal of Ophthalmology,
1991-1994).
Main Outcome Measures.- We measured the inclusion of 56 criteria derived
from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) descriptors
(JAMA 1996;276:637-639) in the text of each report and calculated the
number of criteria included per report and the proportion of reports
including individual criteria. Reports with structured abstracts were
compared with those without, and reports published in 1993 and 1994 in
the American Journal of Ophthalmology were compared with those published
in 1991 and 1992.
Results.- The mean (SEM) number of criteria included by authors was 15.8
(0.4) per report in 125 trial reports. We found no difference in the
mean number of criteria included or the proportion of reports that
included specific criteria by journal. Following structured abstract
use, there was no difference in either the mean number of criteria per
report or the proportion of reports including a majority of criteria
within each CONSORT subheading. Four criteria were included more often
and 2 less often following structured abstract use in individual
journals.
Conclusion.- Using CONSORT descriptor criteria to evaluate reporting
quality, we found no difference in text reporting associated with
structured abstract use in the journals examined.
Also see:
http://www.research.mlanet.org/structured_abstract.html
Finally - a structured abstract foir a letter from the BMJ!
Dear sir,
Background. I write to congratulate you on your editorial on structured
discussions in scientific papers.
Methods. However, you should consider that you may not have gone far
enough.
Results. Why not have structured editorials? Structured news items, book
reviews, fillers, and personal views?
Discussion. Even letters would be much more entertaining to the
scientific reader if rigidly structured.
Yours sincerely,
Dr John R Petrie
Andrew Booth
Senior Lecturer in Evidence Based Healthcare Information & Director of
Information Resources
School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) University of Sheffield
Tel: 0114 222 0705 Fax: 0114 272 4095
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based practice to librarianship and information science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Feddern,
Tanya
Sent: 11 May 2004 17:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Do structured abs. indicate a better research article?
***apologies for cross-posting***
Hello! Do you feel that a structured abstract indicates a) an
easier-to-read article b) a better designed study or c) both? I find it
easier to read a structured abstract, and it seems that they are more
likely to include confidence intervals and p-values in the abstract than
a traditional abstract. Structured abstracts seem more apt to include
epi/EBM figures, such as the Positive Predictive Value and Number Needed
to Treat.
There are studies that say the quality of abstract is superior if it's a
structured abstract. However, does a structured abstract correlate with
better-designed studies and/or easier-to-read studies? If anyone has
cites handy supporting or disproving this, please let me know. I will
summarize to the lists. If structured abstracts are linked with better
studies, I was thinking perhaps it could be a handy pre-screener for us
librarians wanting to choose articles for our EBM students to critically
appraise.
Thank you,
Tanya
Tanya Feddern, MLIS, AHIP, MOT, OTR/L
http://www.geocities.com/nqiya/EBMbib.html
http://www.geocities.com/nqiya/index.html
Evidence-Based Medicine Assistant Professor; Reference & Education
Services
Librarian University of Miami School of Medicine, Louis Calder Memorial
Library
|