Determining the Impact of Journal Abstract Structure and Word Limit on the Completeness of Study Reporting [32G]

INTRODUCTION: It is vital that journal abstracts, which summarize clinical research, contain sufficient information on the study, for readers to draw appropriate conclusions. Our study examined the influence of variations in abstract structure and maximum word limit among obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) journals on the completeness of study reporting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study examining 163 abstracts from 50 OBGYN journals using a modified, 32-item, version of a previously-published checklist for abstract assessment. Abstracts were classified into three groups based on abstract structure – unstructured, structured-with-headings and structured-without-headings, and three based on word count – less-than-250, 250- and greater-than-250 words. Based on preliminary assessment of abstracts, which scored 37-78% on the checklist, we determined that we needed 140 abstracts to determine differences between groups, with 80% power. Primary outcome was abstract quality score. ANOVA and linear regression analysis were used to determine whether abstract structures and word limits were associated with journal abstract quality. RESULTS: A significant difference in mean abstract scores were found for word limit ( P= .012) but not abstract structure (P>.05). Mean score of the greater-than-250-word and 250-word category were significantly higher than those of the less-than-250-word category (68.25 vs 59.69, P= .003 and 65.20 vs 59.69, P= .046 respectively). CONCLUSION: Although abstract structure does not seem to influence quality, OBGYN journal abstracts with less-than-250-words might exclude important study information. Research on other factors influencing abstract quality could help journals improve the appropriate condensation of study information into abstracts, which are most widely read and often used to guide busy clinicians.