Searching the literature for information on traumatic spinal cord injury: The usefulness of abstracts

Spinal Cord

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 76-84

  Dijkers, M P J M ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Abstracting and indexing; Bibliometrics; Pain; Publications; Spinal cord injury

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHRONIC PAIN; DOCUMENTATION; EVALUATION; EXPERIENCE; HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDLINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SPINAL CORD INJURY; UNITED STATES;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING; BIBLIOMETRICS; CHRONIC DISEASE; HUMANS; MEDLINE; PAIN; PERIODICALS; SPINAL CORD INJURIES;

EID: 0037317105     PISSN: 13624393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101414     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Winker MA. The need for concrete improvement in abstract quality. JAMA 1999; 281: 1129-1130.
2. Estrada CA et al. Reporting and concordance of methodologic criteria between abstracts and articles in diagnostic test studies. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15: 183-187.
3. Evans M, Pollock AV. Trials on trial. Review of trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. Arch Surg 1984; 119: 109-113.
4. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 426-432.
5. Gotzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 31-56.
6. Narine L, Yee DS, Einarson TR, Ilersich AL. Quality of abstracts of original research articles in CMAJ in 1989. CMAJ 1991; 144: 449-453.
7. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature. A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106: 598-604.
8. Harris P. A structured form of abstracts for Spinal Cord. Spinal Cord 1997; 35: 865.
9. Haynes RB et al. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 69-76.
10. Froom P, Froom J. Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 591-594.
11. Hartley J, Benjamin M. An evaluation of structured abstracts in journals published by the British Psychological Society. Br J Educ Psychol 1998; 68: 443-456.
12. Taddio A 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. CMAJ 1994; 150: 1611-1615.
13. Trakas K et al. Quality assessment of pharmacoeconomic abstracts of original research articles in selected journals. Ann Pharmacother 1997; 31: 423-428.
14. Harbourt AM, Knecht LS, Humphreys BL. Structured abstracts in MEDLINE, 1989-1991. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1995; 83: 190-195.
15. Hartley J, Sydes M. Are structured abstracts easier to read than traditional ones? J Res Reading 1997; 20: 122-136.
16. Spitzer WO. The structured sonnet. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 729.
17. Sanchez-Thorin JC, Cortes MC, Montenegro M, Villate N. The quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials published in Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 410-5.
18. Scherer RW, Crawley B. Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and use of structured abstracts. JAMA 1998; 280: 269-272.
19. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA 1999; 281: 1110-1111.
20. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 280: 267-269.
21. Haynes RB et al. Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings. A study of use and usefulness. Ann Intern Med 1990; 112: 78-84.
22. Saint S et al. Journal reading habits of internists. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15: 881-884.
23. Barry HC et al. Family physicians' use of medical abstracts to guide decision making: style or substance? J Am Board Fam Pract 2001; 14: 437-442.
24. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 543-549.
25. Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 551-558.
26. Steinijans VW et al. Interobserver agreement: Cohen's kappa coefficient does not necessarily reflect the percentage of patients with congruent classifications. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 35: 93-95.
27. Derry S, Kong Loke Y, Aronson JK. Incomplete evidence: the inadequacy of databases in tracing published adverse drug reactions in clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001; 1: 7.
28. Watson RJ, Richardson PH. Identifying randomized controlled trials of cognitive therapy for depression: comparing the efficiency of Embase, Medline and PsycINFO bibliographic databases. Br J Med Psychol 1999; 72: 535-542.
29. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994; 309: 1286-1291.
30. Avenell A, Handoll HH, Grant AM. Lessons for search strategies from a systematic review, in The Cochrane Library, of nutritional supplementation trials in patients after hip fracture. Am J Clin Nutr 2001; 73: 505-510.
31. Lodge H. Improving the accuracy of abstracts in scientific articles. JAMA 1998; 280: 2071.
32. Ries JE et al. Comparing frequency of content-bearing words in abstracts and texts in articles from four medical journals: an exploratory study. Medinfo 2001; 10: 381-384.