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

doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5

Review

. 2017 Dec 29;17(1):181.

doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5.

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

Guowei Li^{1

2

3}, Luciana P F Abbade⁴, Ikunna Nwosu⁵, Yanling Jin⁵, Alvin Leenus⁶, Muhammad Maaz⁶, Mei Wang⁵, Meha Bhatt⁵, Laura Zielinski⁷, Nitika Sanger⁸, Bianca Bantoto⁹, Candice Luo⁶, Ieta Shams¹⁰, Hamnah Shahid¹¹, Yaping Chang⁵, Guangwen Sun⁵, Lawrence Mbuagbaw^{5

12}, Zainab Samaan^{5

13}, Mitchell A H Levine^{5

12

14

13}, Jonathan D Adachi^{5

12

13}, Lehana Thabane^{15

16

17}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. lig28@mcmaster.ca.
² St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada. lig28@mcmaster.ca.
³ Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. lig28@mcmaster.ca.
⁴ Department of Dermatology and Radiotherapy, Botucatu Medical School, Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
⁵ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁶ Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁷ McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁸ Medical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁹ Integrated Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹⁰ Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹¹ Arts and Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹² St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
¹³ Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
¹⁴ Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹⁵ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. ThabanL@mcmaster.ca.
¹⁶ St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada. ThabanL@mcmaster.ca.
¹⁷ Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, 3rd Floor Martha, Room H325, 50 Charlton Avenue E, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada. ThabanL@mcmaster.ca.

PMID: 29287585
PMCID: PMC5747940
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5

Review

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

Guowei Li et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017.

. 2017 Dec 29;17(1):181.

doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. lig28@mcmaster.ca.
² St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada. lig28@mcmaster.ca.
³ Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. lig28@mcmaster.ca.
⁴ Department of Dermatology and Radiotherapy, Botucatu Medical School, Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
⁵ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁶ Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁷ McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁸ Medical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁹ Integrated Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹⁰ Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹¹ Arts and Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹² St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
¹³ Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
¹⁴ Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹⁵ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. ThabanL@mcmaster.ca.
¹⁶ St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada. ThabanL@mcmaster.ca.
¹⁷ Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, 3rd Floor Martha, Room H325, 50 Charlton Avenue E, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada. ThabanL@mcmaster.ca.

PMID: 29287585
PMCID: PMC5747940
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5

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.

Keywords: Abstract; Accuracy; Deficiency; Discrepancy; Inconsistent reporting; Scoping review; Spin.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

**Fig. 1**
Study flow diagram showing the study selection process

**Fig. 2**
Word clouds of the terminologies used in the included studies, with the relative size of the terms in the word cloud corresponding to the frequency of their use

See this image and copyright information in PMC

Cited by

Disciplinary Imbalances in Urology and Gynecology Research Publications within Functional Urology.
Kozan S, Rahnamai MS, Ataei J, Dombrowski J, Najjari L. Kozan S, et al. Clin Pract. 2024 Aug 29;14(5):1744-1752. doi: 10.3390/clinpract14050139. Clin Pract. 2024. PMID: 39311289 Free PMC article.
ENGINE-An EHS Project for Future Guidelines.
Stabilini C, Antoniou S, Berrevoet F, Boermeester M, Bracale U, de Beaux A, East B, Gök H, Lopez Cano M, Muysoms F, Capoccia Giovannini S, Simons M. Stabilini C, et al. J Abdom Wall Surg. 2024 Jul 12;3:13007. doi: 10.3389/jaws.2024.13007. eCollection 2024. J Abdom Wall Surg. 2024. PMID: 39071940 Free PMC article.
Adoption of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol Increases Cost of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Does not Improve Outcomes.
Ciftci Y, Radomski SN, Johnson BA, Johnston FM, Greer JB. Ciftci Y, et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Aug;31(8):5390-5399. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-15320-x. Epub 2024 May 22. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024. PMID: 38777898
REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol.
McKechnie T, Kazi T, Wang A, Zhang S, Thabane A, Nanji K, Doumouras AG, Eskicioglu C, Thabane L, Parpia S, Bhandari M. McKechnie T, et al. BMJ Open. 2024 Apr 23;14(4):e085293. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085293. BMJ Open. 2024. PMID: 38658008 Free PMC article.
Methotrexate treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis: a scoping review on doses and administration routes.
Rubio-Romero E, Díaz-Torné C, Moreno-Martínez MJ, De-Luz J. Rubio-Romero E, et al. BMC Rheumatol. 2024 Mar 5;8(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s41927-024-00381-y. BMC Rheumatol. 2024. PMID: 38444043 Free PMC article.

See all "Cited by" articles

References

1. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, Michie S, Moher D, Wager E. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet (London, England) 2014;383(9913):267–276. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. - DOI - PubMed
1. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Swiontkowski MF, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(4):615–621. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200204000-00017. - DOI - PubMed
1. Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin". Radiology. 2013;267(2):581–588. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120527. - DOI - PubMed
1. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058–2064. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.651. - DOI - PubMed
1. Simera I, Altman DG. Writing a research article that is “fit for purpose”: EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines. Evidence Based. Medicine. 2009;14(5):132–134. - PubMed

Publication types

Actions
Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
- scite Smart Citations

[1] Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, Michie S, Moher D, Wager E. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet (London, England) 2014;383(9913):267–276. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. - DOI - PubMed

[2] Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, Michie S, Moher D, Wager E. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet (London, England) 2014;383(9913):267–276. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. - DOI - PubMed

[3] Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Swiontkowski MF, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(4):615–621. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200204000-00017. - DOI - PubMed

[4] Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Swiontkowski MF, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(4):615–621. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200204000-00017. - DOI - PubMed

[5] Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin". Radiology. 2013;267(2):581–588. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120527. - DOI - PubMed

[6] Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin". Radiology. 2013;267(2):581–588. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120527. - DOI - PubMed

[7] Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058–2064. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.651. - DOI - PubMed

[8] Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058–2064. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.651. - DOI - PubMed

[9] Simera I, Altman DG. Writing a research article that is “fit for purpose”: EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines. Evidence Based. Medicine. 2009;14(5):132–134. - PubMed

[10] Simera I, Altman DG. Writing a research article that is “fit for purpose”: EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines. Evidence Based. Medicine. 2009;14(5):132–134. - PubMed

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

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

Affiliations

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

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Figures

Similar articles

Cited by

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Other Literature Sources