Adoption of structured abstracts by general medical journals and format for a structured abstract

Department of Health Informatics, School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Konoe-cho, Yoshida, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Kyoto 606-8501 Japan.
Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA (Impact Factor: 0.99). 05/2005; 93(2):237-42.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The use of a structured abstract has been recommended in reporting medical literature to quickly convey necessary information to editors and readers. The use of structured abstracts increased during the mid-1990s; however, recent practice has yet to be analyzed.
This article explored actual reporting patterns of abstracts recently published in selected medical journals and examined what these journals required of abstracts (structured or otherwise and, if structured, which format).
The top thirty journals according to impact factors noted in the "Medicine, General and Internal" category of the ISI Journal Citation Reports (2000) were sampled. Articles of original contributions published by each journal in January 2001 were examined. Cluster analysis was performed to classify the patterns of structured abstracts objectively. Journals' instructions to authors for writing an article abstract were also examined.
Among 304 original articles that included abstracts, 188 (61.8%) had structured and 116 (38.2%) had unstructured abstracts. One hundred twenty-five (66.5%) of the abstracts used the introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) format, and 63 (33.5%) used the 8-heading format proposed by Haynes et al. Twenty-one journals requested structured abstracts in their instructions to authors; 8 journals requested the 8-heading format; and 1 journal requested it only for intervention studies.
Even in recent years, not all abstracts of original articles are structured. The eight-heading format was neither commonly used in actual reporting patterns nor noted in journal instructions to authors.

Download full-text


Available from: Mariko Naito, Aug 20, 2015
  • Source
    • "One of the possible structures of such abstracts is to divide the abstract into three sections: background, results, and conclusion. And, additionally , there are keywords at the end 1 [10]. Another way to facilitate access to the content of a paper is using so called highlights which are " a short collection of bullet points that convey the core findings and provide readers with a quick textual overview of the article " . 2 There are also semantic solutions addressing this problem. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We address the problem of the access to the results of scientific publications in the agri-food domain. We focus on the description of main contributions of the papers treating them as accepted or rejected beliefs of their authors expressed in the form of scientific laws. We define the structure of different kinds of scientific laws present in the domain in the form of an ontology. The main concern of the paper is a process in which we proceed from the abstracts of papers to the ontological representation of laws. Moreover, we present examples of SPARQL queries which show how the resulting knowledge base can be used. Among the uses we point out discovering new scientific hypotheses and incoherencies among scientific laws.
    The Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems; 09/2015
  • Source
    • "This window displays all the QuikScan summaries (along with hyperlinked headings of the document) but none of the intervening body text—very convenient if you opt to read just the summaries. Finally, there is a structured abstract [9] [13], partly visible in the upper left. Structured abstracts, like conventional abstracts, enable a reader to preview the document, but are divided into sections with headings that map to the headings of the document. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many people--especially knowledge workers--experience information overload, lack sufficient time to read, and therefore choose to read selectively within texts. QuikScan Views is a new Web-based reading environment that provides extensive support for selective reading. It is an enhancement of QuikScan, an empirically validated document format that employs a multiple summary approach to facilitate selective reading, enable quick access to specific ideas in the body of the document, and improve text recall. QuikScan Views provides a hyperlinked table of contents for global navigation, displays QuikScan summaries in a scrolling window (as well as within the body of the document), and adds an extra level of summarization by means of a hyperlinked structured abstract. A QuikScan Views document gives the reader choices of pathways through the document corresponding to the time the reader wishes to invest and the reader's desire to increase their recall of the document.
    Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on Design of communication; 10/2012
  • Source
    • "However, after an initial adjustment phase, structured abstracts have been found to be no more taxing on editorial resources than other material (Haynes, McKibbon, et al., 1990). It is important for journal editors to note that journal requirements for the formatting of abstracts promote the respective format (Nakayama et al., 2005). More importantly, the decision by journals to adopt structured abstracts will be key in their implementation in educational research (Mosteller et al., 2004). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present formatting and content of abstracts in educational research might be one barrier preventing wider dissemination and use of such research. Structured abstracts, with specific formatting and content requirements, might help researchers disseminate their work more effectively and efficiently. The purpose of this study was to investigate 2 years of abstracts of empirical research articles submitted to Research in the Schools and to determine the extent to which the abstracts were underdeveloped, thereby suggesting the need for structured abstracts. Of the 74 articles reviewed, 35 (44.3%) contained an underdeveloped abstract. Articles with underdeveloped abstracts were approximately twice as likely to be rejected than were articles with developed abstracts. Finally, 34.3% of the articles contained information in the abstract (e.g., purpose statement, sample size, findings) that was inconsistent with information provided elsewhere in the article.
    Library & Information Science Research 01/2010; 32(1-32):53-61. DOI:10.1016/j.lisr.2009.08.004 · 1.63 Impact Factor
Show more