THE STRUCTURE FORMAT OF ABSTRACTS: A SURVEY OF LEADING DENTAL JOURNALS AND THEIR EDITORS

Chang Li; Xiaolin Fang; Danchen Qin; Fang Hua

doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2021.101646

THE STRUCTURE FORMAT OF ABSTRACTS: A SURVEY OF LEADING DENTAL JOURNALS AND THEIR EDITORS

J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2022 Sep;22(3):101646. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2021.101646. Epub 2021 Oct 1.

Authors

Chang Li¹, Xiaolin Fang¹, Danchen Qin¹, Fang Hua²

Affiliations

¹ Hubei-MOST KLOS & KLOBM, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
² Hubei-MOST KLOS & KLOBM, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Center for Evidence-Based Stomatology, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. Electronic address: huafang@whu.edu.cn.

PMID: 36162876
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2021.101646

Abstract

Objectives: To present the actual usage of different structure formats in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) published in SCIE-indexed dental journals, and to assess the awareness, knowledge, as well as attitudes towards the structured formats of RCT and SR abstracts among editors-in-chief (EICs) of dental journals.

Methods: In the first part of this study, we selected SCIE-indexed dental journals and assessed their eligibility according to pre-determined criteria. All RCTs and SRs published in the included journals during January-June 2020 were identified through a hand-search. The actual usage of different structure formats and headings, as well as relevant editorial policies were extracted. In the second part, an anonymous online survey among the EICs of included dental journals was conducted.

Results: A total of 88 journals were included, from which 364 RCT abstracts and 130 SR abstracts were identified. For RCT abstracts, 86% were structured, with 83% in IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) and 3% in highly structured (HS) format. For SR abstracts, 80% were structured, including 73% in IMRaD and 7% in HS format. According to the "instructions to authors", most journals required either IMRaD (68%) or HS (5%) for RCTs, while less than half required either IMRaD (36%) or HS (9%) for SRs. Twenty-one (24%) EICs participated in our survey, among which 18 agreed that structured formats could improve the reporting quality of RCT abstracts, while only 12 of them thought HS format should be widely recommended in the dental field.

Conclusions: Compared with the HS format, IMRaD was more frequently used and required among RCT and SR abstracts in dentistry. Structured formats held a relatively high degree of recognition among EICs of dental journals. Joint efforts are needed for improving the awareness and usage of HS format.

Keywords: Abstract; Editorial policy; Randomized controlled trial; Structure format; Systematic review.

Publication types

Review

MeSH terms

Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Policies
Humans
Periodicals as Topic*
Research Report
Surveys and Questionnaires