دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Reporting quality of abstracts and inconsistencies with full text articles in pediatric orthopedic publications.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Reporting quality of abstracts and inconsistencies with full text articles in pediatric orthopedic publications.
المؤلفون: Kamel SA; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.; University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK., El-Sobky TA; Division of Pediatric Orthopedics, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. tamer.ahmed@med.asu.edu.eg.
المصدر: Research integrity and peer review [Res Integr Peer Rev] 2023 Aug 23; Vol. 8 (1), pp. 11. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Aug 23.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101676020 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2058-8615 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 20588615 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Res Integr Peer Rev Subsets: PubMed not MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2016]-
مستخلص: Background: Abstracts should provide a brief yet comprehensive reporting of all components of a manuscript. Inaccurate reporting may mislead readers and impact citation practices. It was our goal to investigate the reporting quality of abstracts of interventional observational studies in three major pediatric orthopedic journals and to analyze any reporting inconsistencies between those abstracts and their corresponding full-text articles.
Methods: We selected a sample of 55 abstracts and their full-text articles published between 2018 and 2022. Included articles were primary therapeutic research investigating the results of treatments or interventions. Abstracts were scrutinized for reporting quality and inconsistencies with their full-text versions with a 22-itemized checklist. The reporting quality of titles was assessed by a 3-items categorical scale.
Results: In 48 (87%) of articles there were abstract reporting inaccuracies related to patient demographics. The study's follow-up and complications were not reported in 21 (38%) of abstracts each. Most common inconsistencies between the abstracts and full-text articles were related to reporting of inclusion or exclusion criteria in 39 (71%) and study correlations in 27 (49%) of articles. Reporting quality of the titles was insufficient in 33 (60%) of articles.
Conclusions: In our study we found low reporting quality of abstracts and noticeable inconsistencies with full-text articles, especially regarding inclusion or exclusion criteria and study correlations. While the current sample is likely not representative of overall pediatric orthopedic literature, we recommend that authors, reviewers, and editors ensure abstracts are reported accurately, ideally following the appropriate reporting guidelines, and that they double check that there are no inconsistencies between abstracts and full text articles. To capture essential study information, journals should also consider increasing abstract word limits.
(© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)
References: Cohen JF, Deeks JJ, Hooft L, et al. Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration. BMJ. 2021;372: n265. (PMID: 10.1136/bmj.n265)
Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, et al. The principles of biomedical scientific writing: Title. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2019;17(4): e98326. (PMID: 10.5812/ijem.98326)
Nascimento DP, Gonzalez GZ, Araujo AC, et al. Eight in Every 10 abstracts of low back pain systematic reviews presented spin and inconsistencies with the full text: An analysis of 66 systematic reviews. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2020;50(1):17–23. (PMID: 10.2519/jospt.2020.8962)
Lehmen JA, Deering RM, Simpson AK, et al. Inconsistencies between abstracts and manuscripts in published studies about lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(10):841–5. (PMID: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000290)
Assem Y, Adie S, Tang J, et al. The over-representation of significant p values in abstracts compared to corresponding full texts: A systematic review of surgical randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017;7:194–9. (PMID: 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.07.007)
Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, et al. A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):181. (PMID: 10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5)
Chen Y, Li J, Ai C, et al. Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(8): e11926. (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011926)
Kleweno CP, Bryant WK, Jacir AM, et al. Discrepancies and rates of publication in orthopaedic sports medicine abstracts. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(10):1875–9. (PMID: 10.1177/0363546508319054)
El-Sobky TA. An author’s guide to mastering academic writing skills: Discussion of a medical manuscript. J Musculoskelet Surg Res. 2021;5:227–34. (PMID: 10.25259/JMSR_79_2021)
Pavlovic V, Weissgerber T, Stanisavljevic D, et al. How accurate are citations of frequently cited papers in biomedical literature? Clin Sci (Lond). 2021;135(5):671–81. (PMID: 10.1042/CS20201573)
Bagga R, Cay P, Ricketts D, et al. Quotation errors related to the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus Evaluation by Randomization (ProFHER) study. Should Elb. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758573220950235 . (PMID: 10.1177/1758573220950235)
Luo M, Li CC, Molina D 4th, et al. Accuracy of citation and quotation in foot and ankle surgery journals. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34(7):949–55. (PMID: 10.1177/1071100713475354)
Davids JR, Weigl DM, Edmonds JP, et al. Reference accuracy in peer-reviewed pediatric orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1155–61. (PMID: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00063)
Buijze GA, Weening AA, Poolman RW, et al. Predictors of the accuracy of quotation of references in peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature in relation to publications on the scaphoid. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(2):276–80. (PMID: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B2.27618)
Rivkin A. Manuscript referencing errors and their impact on shaping current evidence. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020;84(7):ajpe7846. (PMID: 10.5688/ajpe7846)
Greenberg SA. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ. 2009;339: b2680. (PMID: 10.1136/bmj.b2680)
Pontis S, Blandford A, Greifeneder E, et al. Keeping up to date: An academic researcher’s information journey. J Assn Inf Sci Tec. 2017;68:22–35. (PMID: 10.1002/asi.23623)
Souza KE, Chan JY, Campbell ST, et al. Research methodologic quality varies significantly by subspecialty: An analysis of AAOS meeting abstracts. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020;15:37–41 Erratum in: J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021;21:101561. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.11.001)
Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2008;5(1): e20. (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020)
JerčićMartinić-Cezar I, Marušić A. Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study. Trials. 2019;20(1):669. (PMID: 10.1186/s13063-019-3781-x)
O’Donohoe TJ, Dhillon R, Bridson TL, et al. Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts published in leading neurosurgical journals: A research on research study. Neurosurgery. 2019;85(1):1–10. (PMID: 10.1093/neuros/nyy615)
Janackovic K, Puljak L. Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in the seven highest-ranking anesthesiology journals. Trials. 2018;19(1):591. (PMID: 10.1186/s13063-018-2976-x)
The Office of Research Integrity [internet]. Relying on an abstract or a preliminary or version of a paper while citing the published version [cited 2022 June 20]. Available from: https://ori.hhs.gov/relying-abstract-or-preliminary-or-version-paper-while-citing-published-version .
Menon V, Varadharajan N, Praharaj SK, et al. Quality of peer review reports submitted to a specialty psychiatry journal. Asian J Psychiatr. 2021;58: 102599. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ajp.2021.102599)
Superchi C, Hren D, Blanco D, et al. Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research. BMJ Open. 2020;10(6): e035604. (PMID: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035604)
Rodríguez-Carrio J, Putrik P, Sepriano A, et al. Improving the peer review skills of young rheumatologists and researchers in rheumatology: the EMEUNET Peer Review Mentoring Program. RMD Open. 2018;4(1): e000619. (PMID: 10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000619)
Schulz R, Barnett A, Bernard R, et al. Is the future of peer review automated? BMC Res Notes. 2022;15(1):203. (PMID: 10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6)
Hyland K, Zou HJ. Titles in research articles. J Engl Acad Purp. 2022;56: 101094. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101094)
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: Academic writing; Article summary; Journal abstract; Manuscript title; Orthopedic periodicals; Scholarly authorship
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20230823 Latest Revision: 20231118
رمز التحديث: 20240628
مُعرف محوري في PubMed: PMC10463470
DOI: 10.1186/s41073-023-00135-3
PMID: 37608346
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:2058-8615
DOI:10.1186/s41073-023-00135-3