CAN THE ACCURACY OF ABSTRACTS BE IMPROVED BY PROVIDING SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS - A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Context.-The most-read section of a research article is the abstract, and therefore it is especially important that the abstract be accurate . Objective.-To test the hypothesis that providing authors with specif ic instructions about abstract accuracy will result in improved accura cy. Design.-Randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention specifying 3 types of common defects in abstracts of articles that ha d been reviewed and were.being returned to the authors with an invitat ion to revise. Mean Outcome Measure.-Proportion of abstracts containin g 1 or more of the following defects: inconsistency in data between ab stract and body of manuscript (text, tables, and figures), data or oth er information given in abstract but not in body, and/or conclusions n ot justified by information in the abstract. Results.-Of 250 manuscrip ts randomized, 13 were never revised and 34 were lost to follow-up, le aving a final comparison between 89 in the intervention group and 114 in the control;group. Abstracts were defective in 25 (28%) and 30 (26% ) cases, respectively (P =.78). Among 55 defective abstracts, 28 (51%) had inconsistencies, 16 (29%) contained data not present in the body, 8 (15%) had both types of defects, and 3 (5%) contained unjustified c onclusions. Conclusions.-Defects in abstracts, particularly inconsiste ncies between abstract and body and the presentation of data in abstra ct but not in body, occur frequently. Specific instructions to authors who are revising their manuscripts are ineffective in lowering this r ate. Journals should include in their editing processes specific and d etailed attention to abstracts.