Quality of Abstracts in the Context of a Systematic Review on Parenting of Children with Chronic Health Conditions and Disabilities
Abstract
In this study the authors address the quality of abstracts reviewed during a systematic review. Their objective was to describe the proportion of abstracts that could not be coded and to explore factors associated with that outcome. Using an exploratory design, a database of titles uploaded for analysis was examined for clarity, type and year of publication, and abstract format. Of the 1851 references examined, 481 (26%) were coded as unclear. The inter-rater reliability Kappa score was 0.777. These abstracts were more likely to have been published prior to 2002 and did not use a structured format. Abstracts are an important tool in the systematic review process. Structured abstracts can reduce the time and costs associated with conducting a systematic review.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Our exclusions agree with a study where the review team decided to include/exclude given articles based on whether the abstract satisfied the prespecified criteria of the tool employed.
“Our exclusions agree with a study where the review team decided to include/exclude given articles based on whether the abstract satisfied the prespecified criteria of the tool employed [40].”
From Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist (2023) · cites this paper as [40]
Published SRs are about > 8000 per year, with financial implications related to unclear abstracts.
“Published SRs are about > 8000 per year, with financial implications related to unclear abstracts [40,45].”
From Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist (2023) · cites this paper as [40]
Cites
Obtaining information accurately and quickly: are structured abstracts more efficient?
Hartley, J., Sydes, M., & Blurton, A. (1996) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/016555159602200503 · Cited by 73 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The use of a structured abstract is supported by the research of Hartley and colleagues (eg, Hartley, 1997 ; Kostoff & Hartley, 2001 ; Hartley, Sydes & Blurton, 1996 ).”
MethodStructured Abstracts for Technical Journals
Kostoff, R. N., & Hartley, J. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.292.5519.1067a · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
El Ansari, W., AlRumaihi, K., El-Ansari, K., Arafa, M., Elbardisi, H., Majzoub, A., Shamsodini, A., & Al Ansari, A. (2023) · Arab Journal of Urology · doi:10.1080/2090598x.2022.2113127 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Published SRs are about > 8000 per year, with financial implications related to unclear abstracts [40,45].”
Background
- Authors
- Cimino, T., Lach, L. M., Mechan, K., Saini, M., Nimigon-Young, J., McNeill, T., Nicholas, D., & Rosenbaum, P.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- University of Calgary (CA)
- McMaster University (CA)
- Venue
- Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-07-29
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 369-378
- ISSN
- 1543-3714 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-3722
- OpenAlex
- W2075053421
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- abstract quality, structured abstracts, systematic reviews, inter-rater reliability, publication year, parenting, children with chronic illness, children with disabilities
- MeSH terms
- Abstracting and Indexing, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Chronic Disease, Humans, Social Work, Reproducibility of Results, Parenting, Children with Disabilities, Disabled Children
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
