A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Hamnah Shahid¹  Luciana P. F. Abbade²  Lehana Thabane³  Guangwen Sun³  Ikunna Nwosu³  Mitchell A. H. Levine³  Lawrence Mbuagbaw³  Guowei Li³  Meha Bhatt³  Jonathan D. Adachi³  Yanling Jin³  Zainab Samaan³  Yaping Chang³  Mei Wang³  Muhammad Maaz⁴  Candice Luo⁴  Alvin Leenus⁴  Bianca Bantoto⁵  Laura Zielinski⁶  Nitika Sanger⁷  Ieta Shams⁸ 

[1] Arts and Science, McMaster University;Department of Dermatology and Radiotherapy, Botucatu Medical School, Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESP;Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University;Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University;Integrated Sciences, McMaster University;McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study, McMaster University;Medical Sciences, McMaster University;Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour;

关键词: Abstract;    Scoping review;    Inconsistent reporting;    Deficiency;    Accuracy;    Discrepancy;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports. Methods We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively. Results Seventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies. Conclusions This scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.

【 授权许可】

Unknown