BACKGROUND: Structured abstracts - which, like the present one, contain several subheadings - have replaced traditional abstracts in most medical journals. Evaluation studies have shown that such abstracts usually provide more information, are of a higher quality, facilitate peer review and are generally welcomed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
J. Hartley and M. Sydes, Which layout do you prefer? An analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts , Journal of Information Science22(1) (1996) 27-37.
2.
Ad HocWorking Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature, A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles, Annals of Internal Medicine106 (1987) 598-604.
3.
R.B. Haynes et al., More informative abstracts revisited , Annals of Internal Medicine113 (1990) 69-76.
4.
R.B. Haynes , More informative abstracts: current status and evaluation, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology46 (1993) 595-597.
5.
A. Taddio et al., 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, Canadian Medical Association Journal150 (1994) 1611-1615.
6.
N. Mclntosh , Structured Abstracts and Information Transfer (Report No. 6142) ( British Library, London, 1995).
7.
J. Hartley and M. Sydes, Structured Abstracts in the Social Sciences: Presentation, Readability and Recall (Report No. 6211) (British Library, London, 1995).
8.
P. Froom and J. Froom, Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46 (1993 ) 691-594.
9.
J. Hartley , Three ways to improve the clarity of journal abstracts, British Journal of Educational Psychology64 (1994) 331-343.
