• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Canadian Medical Association Journal >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.
【2h】

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.

机译：英国医学杂志加拿大医学协会杂志和美国医学协会杂志上原始研究文章的非结构化和结构化摘要的质量。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in three medical journals. DESIGN: Blind, criterion-based observational study. SAMPLE: Random sample of 300 abstracts (25 abstracts per journal each year) of articles published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1988 and 1989 (nonstructured abstracts) and in 1991 and 1992 (structured abstracts). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality of abstracts was measured against 33 objective criteria, which were divided into eight categories (purpose, research design, setting, subjects, intervention, measurement of variables, results and conclusions). The quality score was determined by dividing the number of criteria present by the number applicable; the score varied from 0 to 1. RESULTS: The overall mean quality scores for nonstructured and structured abstracts were 0.57 and 0.74 respectively (p < 0.001). The frequency in meeting the specific criteria was generally higher for the structured abstracts than for the nonstructured ones. The mean quality score was higher for nonstructured abstracts in JAMA than for those in BMJ (0.60 v. 0.54, p < 0.05). The scores for structured abstracts did not differ significantly between the three journals. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support recommendations that promote the use of structured abstracts. Further studies should be performed to assess the effect of time on the quality of abstracts and the extent to which abstracts reflect the content of the articles.
机译：目的：评估和比较三种医学杂志上原始研究文章的非结构化和结构化摘要的质量。设计：基于标准的盲法观察研究。样本：随机抽取了1988年和1989年在《英国医学杂志》（BMJ），《加拿大医学会杂志》和《美国医学会杂志》（JAMA）上发表的300篇论文摘要（每年每个期刊25篇摘要）（非结构性摘要） ），1991年和1992年（结构化摘要）。主要观察指标：根据33项客观标准对摘要的质量进行了测量，这些标准分为八类（目的，研究设计，设置，主题，干预，变量测量，结果和结论）。质量得分是通过将现有标准的数量除以适用的数量来确定的；结果在0到1之间变化。结果：非结构化摘要和结构化摘要的整体平均质量得分分别为0.57和0.74（p <0.001）。一般而言，结构化摘要符合特定标准的频率要高于非结构化摘要。 JAMA中非结构性摘要的平均质量得分高于BMJ中的平均质量得分（0.60 v。0.54，p <0.05）。三种期刊之间的结构性摘要得分没有显着差异。结论：研究结果支持了促进使用结构化摘要的建议。应该进行进一步的研究，以评估时间对摘要质量以及摘要反映文章内容的程度的影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号