Literature DB >> 11055300

Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews.

J Hartley1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a small body of research on improving the clarity of abstracts in general that is relevant to improving the clarity of abstracts of systematic reviews.
OBJECTIVES: To summarize this earlier research and indicate its implications for writing the abstracts of systematic reviews.
METHOD: Literature review with commentary on three main features affecting the clarity of abstracts: their language, structure, and typographical presentation.
CONCLUSIONS: The abstracts of systematic reviews should be easier to read than the abstracts of medical research articles, as they are targeted at a wider audience. The aims, methods, results, and conclusions of systematic reviews need to be presented in a consistent way to help search and retrieval. The typographic detailing of the abstracts (type-sizes, spacing, and weights) should be planned to help, rather than confuse, the reader.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11055300      PMCID: PMC35254     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bull Med Libr Assoc        ISSN: 0025-7338


  13 in total

1.  Applying ergonomics to Applied Ergonomics: using structured abstracts.

Authors:  J Hartley
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.661

2.  Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles.

Authors:  R M Pitkin; M A Branagan; L F Burmeister
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999 Mar 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  A new readability yardstick.

Authors:  R FLESCH
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  1948-06

4.  Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and use of structured abstracts.

Authors:  R W Scherer; B Crawley
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

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

Authors:  R M Pitkin; M A Branagan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  How reliable is computerized assessment of readability?

Authors:  S L Mailloux; M E Johnson; D G Fisher; T J Pettibone
Journal:  Comput Nurs       Date:  1995 Sep-Oct

8.  Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Authors:  A Taddio; T Pain; F F Fassos; H Boon; A L Ilersich; T R Einarson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1994-05-15       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  More informative abstracts: current status and evaluation.

Authors:  R B Haynes
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Authors:  J C Roberts; R H Fletcher; S W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-07-13       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Current findings from research on structured abstracts.

Authors:  James Hartley
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2004-07

2.  Managing evidence-based knowledge: the need for reliable, relevant and readable resources.

Authors:  Sharon Straus; R Bryan Haynes
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2009-04-28       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  An iterative evaluation of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians: a focus group study.

Authors:  Laure Perrier; M Ryan Kealey; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Toward automated consumer question answering: automatically separating consumer questions from professional questions in the healthcare domain.

Authors:  Feifan Liu; Lamont D Antieau; Hong Yu
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 6.317

5.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-21

6.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

7.  Quality of abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals.

Authors:  S J Pulikkotil; J Jayaraman; V Nagendrababu
Journal:  Eur Arch Paediatr Dent       Date:  2019-03-18

8.  A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jean Joel R Bigna; Lewis N Um; Jobert Richie N Nansseu
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-10-13

9.  PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts.

Authors:  Elaine M Beller; Paul P Glasziou; Douglas G Altman; Sally Hopewell; Hilda Bastian; Iain Chalmers; Peter C Gøtzsche; Toby Lasserson; David Tovey
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 11.069

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.