Skip to main content

Reporting and concordance of methodologic criteria between abstracts and articles in diagnostic test studies

Journal of General Internal Medicine volume 15, pages 183–187 (2000)Cite this article

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality and concordance of methodologic criteria in abstracts versus articles regarding the diagnosis of trichomoniasis.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey of published literature.

DATA SOURCES: Studies indexed in medline (1976–1998).

STUDY SELECTION: Studies that used culture as the gold or reference standard.

DATA EXTRACTION: Data from abstract and articles were independently abstracted using 4 methodologic criteria: (1) prospective evaluation of consecutive patients; (2) test results did not influence the decision to do gold standard; (3) independent and blind comparison with gold standard; and (4) broad spectrum of patients used. The total number of criteria met for each report was calculated to create a quality score (0–4).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: None of the 33 abstracts or full articles reported all 4 criteria. Three criteria were reported in none of the abstracts and in 18% of articles (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 8.6% to 34%). Two criteria were reported in 18% of abstracts (95% CI, 8.6% to 34%) and 42% of articles (95% CI, 27% to 59%). One criterion was reported in 42% of abstracts (95% CI, 27% to 59%) and 27% of articles (95% CI, 15% to 44%). No criteria were reported in 13 (39%) of 33 abstracts (95% CI, 25% to 56%) and 4 (12%) of 33 articles (95% CI, 4.8% to 27%). The agreement of the criteria between the abstract and the article was poor (k -0.09; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0) to moderate (k 0.53; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.83).

CONCLUSIONS: Information on methods basic to study validity is often absent from both abstract and paper. The concordance of such criteria between the abstract and article needs to improve.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Fitzgerald D, Guyatt GH, Walker CJ, Sackett DL. How to keep up with the medical literature, I: why try to keep up and how to get started. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:149–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Shin JH, Haynes RB, Johnston ME. Effect of problem-based, self-directed undergraduate education on life-long learning. CMAJ. 1993;148:969–76.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Haynes RB. Some problems in applying evidence in clinical practice. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:210–25.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:69–76.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Haynes RB. More informative abstracts: current status and evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:595–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Harbourt AM, Knecht LS, Humphreys BL. Structured abstracts in MEDLINE, 1989–1991. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1995;83:190–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, Boon H, Ilersich AL, Einarson TR. 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;150:1611–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Scherer RW, Crawley B. Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and use of structured abstracts. JAMA, 1998;280:269–72.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. The Asilomar Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Checklist of information for inclusion in reports of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:741–3.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hayward RS, Wilson MC, Tunis SR, Bass EB, Rubin HR, Haynes RB. More informative abstracts of articles describing clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:731–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung CM, Hayes JA, Chalmers TC. Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal. JAMA. 1994;272:108–13.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:267–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sheps SB, Schechter MT. The assessment of diagnostic tests: a survey of current medical research. JAMA. 1984;252:2418–22.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Arroll B, Schechter MT, Sheps SB. The assessment of diagnostic tests: a comparison of medical literature in 1982 and 1985. J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3:443–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research: getting better but still not good. JAMA. 1995;274:645–51.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wiese WJ, Patel SR, Patel SC, Ohl C, Estrada CA. A meta-analysis of the wet mount and Papanicolaou smear for the diagnosis of vaginal trichomoniasis. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(suppl 2):79. Abstract.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Petrin D, Delgaty K, Bhatt R, Garber G. Clinical and microbiological aspects of Trichomonas vaginalis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1998;11:300–17.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sobel JD. Vaginitis. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1896–903.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cochrane Methods Working Group on Systematic Review of Screening and Diagnostic Tests. Recommended Methods. Updated June 6, 1996. Available from URL at: http://Som.Flinders.Edu.Au/Fusa/Cochrane/.

  20. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:667–76.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kearon C, Julian JA, Newman TEGJS, for the McMaster Diagnostic Imaging Practice Guidelines Initiative. Noninvasive diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:663–77.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wells PS, Lensing AW, Davidson BL, Prins MH, Hirsh J. Accuracy of ultrasound for the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis in asymptomatic patients after orthopedic surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:47–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, For The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature, III: how to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA. 1994;271:703–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. 2nd ed. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown and Co; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Simon R. Confidence intervals for reporting results of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:429–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA. 1999;281:1110–1.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mulrow CD, Linn WD, Gaul MK, Pugh JA. Assessing quality of a diagnostic test evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4:288–95.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Junker CA. Adherence to published standards of reporting: a comparison of placebo-controlled trials published in English or German. JAMA. 1998;280:247–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Winker MA. The need for concrete improvement in abstract quality. JAMA. 1999;281:1129–30.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. East Carolina University School of Medicine, Pitt County Memorial Hospital, 600 Moye Blvd., Teaching Annex 389, 27858, Greenville, NC

    Carlos A. Estrada MD, MS, Richard M. Bloch PhD, Diana Antonacci MD, L. Lorraine Basnight MD, Sangnya R. Patel MD, Sanjay C. Patel MD & Wilhelmine Wiese MD

Authors
  1. Carlos A. Estrada MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard M. Bloch PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diana Antonacci MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Lorraine Basnight MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sangnya R. Patel MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sanjay C. Patel MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wilhelmine Wiese MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos A. Estrada MD, MS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Estrada, C.A., Bloch, R.M., Antonacci, D. et al. Reporting and concordance of methodologic criteria between abstracts and articles in diagnostic test studies. J GEN INTERN MED 15, 183–187 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.03189.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.03189.x

Key words

  • evidence-based medicine
  • periodicals
  • publishing
  • quality control
  • sensitivity and specificity
  • diagnosis