The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Proposal for More Informative Abstracts of Clinical Articles
Abstract
Medical journals are a principal source of new knowledge for clinicians. Unfortunately, articles containing valid and valuable information are often buried among others of less value. Innovations are needed to assist clinicians in finding articles that are both scientifically sound and applicable to their practices. An easily implemented, although partial, solution is for authors of articles that have clinical implications to structure their abstracts so that key aspects of purpose, methods, and results are reported with a partly controlled vocabulary and in a standardized format. This would assist clinical readers to select appropriate articles more quickly, allow more precise computerized literature searches, and facilitate peer review before publication.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration
Cohen, J. F., Korevaar, D. A., Altman, D. G., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Hooft, L., Irwig, L., Levine, D., Reitsma, J. B., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799 · Cited by 2,570
PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts
Beller, E. M., Glasziou, P. P., Altman, D. G., Hopewell, S., Bastian, H., Chalmers, I., Gøtzsche, P. C., Lasserson, T., Tovey, D., & for the PRISMA for Abstracts Group (2013) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 · Cited by 706
Hopewell, S., Clarke, M., Moher, D., Wager, E., Middleton, P., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., & and the CONSORT Group (2008) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020 · Cited by 674
More informative abstracts revisited.
Haynes, R. B., Mulrow, C. D., Huth, E. J., Altman, D. G., & Gardner, M. J. (1990) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-113-1-69 · Cited by 526
Cicchetti, D. V. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065675 · Cited by 496
Metadata
- Authors
- AD HOC WORKING GROUP FOR CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1987-04-01
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 598-604
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W4240643881
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 61.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Proposal for More Informative Abstracts of Clinical Articles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-106-4-598
- The paper
- AD HOC WORKING GROUP FOR CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE. (1987). A Proposal for More Informative Abstracts of Clinical Articles. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-106-4-598
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
