M P J M Dijkers1. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA. marcel.dijkers@mssm.edu
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of abstracts of published papers presumed to contain information on chronic pain in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVES: To determine to what degree papers on SCI are abstracted in such a way that they can be retrieved, and evaluated as to the paper's applicability to a reader's questions. SETTING: US--academic department of rehabilitation medicine. METHODS: 868 abstracts published in Medline were independently examined by two out of 13 screeners, who answered four questions on the subjects and nature of the paper with 'Yes', 'No' or 'insufficient information'. Frequency of ratings 'insufficient information', and screener agreement were evaluated as affected by screener and abstract/paper characteristics. RESULTS: Screeners could not determine whether the paper dealt with persons with traumatic SCI for 37% of abstracts; whether chronic pain was a topic could not be determined in 18%. Physicians were less willing than other disciplines to assign 'insufficient information'. Screener agreement was better than chance, but not at the level suggested for quality measurement. Screener discipline and task experience did not make a difference, nor did abstract length, structure, or decade of publication of the paper. CONCLUSION: Authors need to improve the quality of abstracts to make retrieval and screening of relevant papers more effective and efficient. SPONSORSHIP: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of abstracts of published papers presumed to contain information on chronic pain in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVES: To determine to what degree papers on SCI are abstracted in such a way that they can be retrieved, and evaluated as to the paper's applicability to a reader's questions. SETTING: US--academic department of rehabilitation medicine. METHODS: 868 abstracts published in Medline were independently examined by two out of 13 screeners, who answered four questions on the subjects and nature of the paper with 'Yes', 'No' or 'insufficient information'. Frequency of ratings 'insufficient information', and screener agreement were evaluated as affected by screener and abstract/paper characteristics. RESULTS: Screeners could not determine whether the paper dealt with persons with traumatic SCI for 37% of abstracts; whether chronic pain was a topic could not be determined in 18%. Physicians were less willing than other disciplines to assign 'insufficient information'. Screener agreement was better than chance, but not at the level suggested for quality measurement. Screener discipline and task experience did not make a difference, nor did abstract length, structure, or decade of publication of the paper. CONCLUSION: Authors need to improve the quality of abstracts to make retrieval and screening of relevant papers more effective and efficient. SPONSORSHIP: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.