本刊对论文摘要写作的要求

论著需附中、英文摘要,摘要内容应包括研究目的、方法、主要发现（包括关键性或主要的数据）和主要结论,应写成冠以“目的（Objective）”、“方法（Methods）”、“结果（Results）”和“结论（Conclusions）”的结构式摘要。     

如何撰写医学论文Ⅷ.关于医学论文英文摘要的撰写要求(五)

除了前几讲中提到的问题外，撰写英文摘要时常见的问题还有以下几个方面。     

如何撰写医学论文Ⅵ.关于医学论文英文摘要的撰写要求(三)

前两讲中我们讨论了撰写英文文题的具体要求并进行了实例分析.以下将继续讲解撰写英文摘要的其他要求.     

如何撰写医学论文Ⅶ.关于医学论文英文摘要的撰写要求(四)

在第三讲中我们讨论了英文摘要“目的”和“方法”的撰写要求，现继续讲解如何撰写医学论文英文摘要的“结果”、“结论”和“关键词”部分。     

本刊对论文摘要写作的要求

论著需附中、英文摘要，摘要的内容应包括研究目的、方法、主要发现（包括关键性或主要的数据）和主要结论，应写成冠以“目的（Objective）”、“方法（Methods）”、“结果（Results）”和“结论（Conclusions）”的结构式摘要。用第三人称撰写，不列图、表，不引用文献，不加评论和解释。英文摘要应包括题名、作者姓名（汉语拼音，姓每个字母大写，名首字母大写，     

如何撰写医学论文Ⅴ.关于医学论文英文摘要的撰写要求(二)

上一讲具体讲述了撰写医学论文英文文题的各项要求,以下将结合上次所述要求,对一些文题进行分析.重点是某些方面存在不足,可以进一步修改、完善的文题.     

本刊对论文摘要写作的要求

论著需附中、英文摘要，摘要的内容应包括研究目的、方法、主要发现（包括关键性或主要的数据）和主要结论，应写成冠以“目的（Objective）”、“方法（Methods）”、“结果（Results）”和“结论（Conclusions）”的结构式摘要。用第三人称撰写，不列图、表，不引用文献，不加评论和解释。英文摘要应包括题名、作者姓名（汉语拼音，姓每个字母大写，名首字母大写，双字名中间加连字符）、单位名称、所在城市名、邮政编码及国名。应列出全部作者姓名，如作者工作单位不同，只列出第一作者和通讯作者的工作单位。中文摘要一般不超过400个汉字，英文摘要为300个实词左右。英文摘要一般与中文摘要内容相对应，但为了对外交流的需要，可以略详细些。     

本刊对论文摘要写作的要求

论著需附中、英文摘要，摘要的内容应包括研究目的、方法、主要发现（包括关键性或主要的数据）和主要结论，应写成冠以“目的（Objective）”、“方法（Methods）”、“结果（Results）”和“结论（Conclusions）”的结构式摘要。用第三人称撰写，不列图、表，不弓1用文献，不加评论和解释。英文摘要应包括题名、作者姓名（汉语拼音，姓每个字母大写，名首字母大写，双字名中间加连字符）、单位名称、所在城市名、邮政编码及国名。     

本刊对论文摘要写作的要求

论著需附中、英文摘要,摘要的内容应包括研究目的、方法、主要发现（包括关键性或主要的数据）和主要结论,应写成冠以“目的（Objective）”、“方法（Methods）”、“结果（Results）”和“结论（Conclusions）”的结构式摘要。用第三人称撰写,不列图、表,不引用文献,不加评论和解释。英文摘要应包括题名、作者姓名（汉语拼音,姓每个字母大写,名首字母大写,     

全国第二期医学论文写作研修班通知

为提高广大作者的医学论文特别是医学论文英文写作水平，中华医学会《中华医学杂志（英文版）》定于2007年8月在北京举办第二期“全国医学论文写作研修班”[项目编号2007-15-01-032（国）]。研修班将邀请国内知名流行病学、统计学家讲授科研选题、科研设计和统计学相关知识，     

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals

Objectives

Abstracts of systematic reviews are of critical importance, as consumers of research often do not access the full text. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading oral implantology journals.

Methods

Six specialty journals were screened for SRs between 2008 and 2012. A 16-item checklist, based on the PRISMA statement, was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting.

Results

Ninety-three SR abstracts were included in this study. The majority were published in Clinical Oral Implants Research (43%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 72.5% (95% CI: 70.8–74.2). Most abstracts were structured (97.9%), adequately reporting objectives (97.9%) and conclusions (93.6%). Conversely, inadequate reporting of methods of the study, background (79.6%), appraisal (65.6%), and data synthesis (65.6%) were observed. Registration of reviews was not reported in any of the included abstracts. Multivariate analysis revealed no difference in reporting quality with respect to continent, number of authors, or meta-analysis conduct.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in implantology journals requires further improvement.

Clinical significance

Better reporting of SR abstracts is particularly important in ensuring the reliability of research findings, ultimately promoting the practice of evidence-based dentistry. Optimal reporting of SR abstracts should be encouraged, preferably by endorsing the PRISMA for abstracts guidelines.     

Current status of the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews related to implant dentistry: a literature survey

The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews (SRs) related to implant dentistry and to assess the possible factors associated with the reporting quality. Abstracts of SRs in the field of implant dentistry, published in the last 5 years, were searched. The reporting quality was assessed and scored using the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist (PRISMA-A). The overall PRISMA-A score (OPS) and relative score (OPS%) per review were calculated according to adherence to the criteria presented in the checklist. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify possible factors associated with reporting quality. Overall, 310 SRs were eligible for this study. Based on the maximum PRISMA-A score (score of 12), the mean OPS was 6.5 and OPS% was 54.2%. The items ‘title’, ‘objectives’, and ‘number of included studies’ were those most frequently reported in the abstracts, while the items ‘registration’ and ‘funding’ were the least reported. According to multivariable linear regression, the geographical origin of the articles was the only factor associated with better quality of abstract reporting, with higher OPS for SRs from Europe when compared to North America (coefficient 0.73; P = 0.049). The reporting quality of abstracts in SRs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal and needs to be improved. Journals should encourage adherence to reporting checklists in SRs.     

Quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading journals of periodontology and implant dentistry: a survey

Background: Most readers, reviewers, and editors rely on abstracts to decide whether to assess the full text of an article. A research abstract should, therefore, be as informative as possible. The standard of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and implant dentistry has not yet been assessed. The objectives of this review are: 1) to assess the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs in periodontology and implant dentistry, and 2) to investigate changes in the quality of reporting by comparing samples from different periods. Methods: The authors searched the PubMed electronic database, independently and in duplicate, for abstracts of RCTs published in seven leading journals of periodontology and implant dentistry from 2005 to 2007 and from 2009 to 2011. The quality of reporting in selected abstracts with reference to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for Abstracts checklist published in January 2008 was assessed independently and in duplicate. Cohen κ statistic was used to determine the extent of agreement of the reviewers. Pearson χ(2) test and/or Fisher exact test were used to assess differences in reporting in the two samples. Level of significance was set at P <0.05. Results: Three hundred ninety-two abstracts are included in this review. Three items (intervention, objective, and conclusions) were almost fully reported in both samples. In contrast, other items (randomization, trial registration, and funding) were never reported. There were significant changes in reporting for only two items, trial design and title (items better reported in the pre- and post-CONSORT samples, respectively). Most topics, however, were similarly poorly reported in both samples of abstracts. Conclusions: The quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs in periodontology and implant dentistry can be improved. Authors should follow the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines, and journal editors should promote clear rules to improve authors' adherence to these guidelines.     

A method for comparison of biomedical publication quality across ISI discipline categories

The purpose of this paper is to offer a method to help to objectively compare quality of publication in biomedical journals in different disciplines with varying ISI Impact Factors (IF). Three methods--the number of journals per ISI Journal Citation Report discipline category/10, the IF/10, and the log (IF+1)/10--were used to calculate an article score. The distribution of article scores were compared across three defined ISI discipline categories: two clinical categories, dentistry (ISI category--dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine, forty-five journals) and medicine (ISI category--medicine, internal and general, 110 journals), and one basic science category, physiology (ISI category--physiology, seventy-four journals). The use of article scores per discipline category enables a reasonable, relative comparison of the quality of biomedical publications of individuals across disciplines for the purpose of promotion or awarding of research grants.     

A survey of the publication history of randomly selected IADR/AADR abstracts presented in 1983 and 1984

IADR/AADR abstracts of research projects to be presented at the Annual Meeting are published each year in the Journal of Dental Research. An assumption often made is that the material in these abstracts is subsequently published as journal articles. The validity of this assumption was assessed in this study. Following a review of the literature to establish study criteria, the specific objectives of this study were to determine: (1) the percentage of IADR/AADR abstracts subsequently published as articles, (2) the length of time from abstract to publication, and (3) the amount of discrepancy between abstract and article. Ten percent of the IADR/AADR abstracts from the years 1983 (n = 125) and 1984 (n = 150) were randomly selected and surveyed for their publication history. Major reference sources were checked for determination of whether articles had resulted from the abstracts. Of the 1983-1984 abstracts surveyed, the results indicated that more abstracts were not published (78.5% in 1983/76.0% in 1984) than were published (21.6% in 1983/24.0% in 1984). Of those articles previously published as abstracts, the greatest number (44.4% in 1983 47.2% in 1984) were published within ten to 21 months following presentation. The greatest amount of discrepancy between the abstract and the article involved names and numbers of authors, titles, purpose statements, and results/conclusions. In other health disciplines, the percentage of abstracts subsequently published as articles ranged from 31.1% to 53.9%. Since a smaller percentage of the IADR/AADR abstracts surveyed in this study were ultimately published (21.6% to 24%). IADR/AADR should consider various strategies to improve the quality of abstracts and their accessibility.