100 likes | 115 Vues
“Abstract and Keywords: the Most Visible Part of a Scientific Paper” Sarah J. Kilpatrick, MD, PhD Editor American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Sarah J. Kilpatrick, AJOG, 2016. Keywords: Why?. How articles are searched So others can find your article
E N D
“Abstract and Keywords: the Most Visible Part of a Scientific Paper” Sarah J. Kilpatrick, MD, PhD Editor American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Sarah J. Kilpatrick, AJOG, 2016.
Keywords: Why? • How articles are searched • So others can find your article • Should be helpful • On AJOG website, click on keyword • All articles in AJOG come up with same keywords • Remove filter: all articles come up Sarah J. Kilpatrick, AJOG, 2016.
Keywords: Rules and Tips • Should be present in title and or abstract • Must be listed alphabetically • Nouns or short phrases • Do not duplicate: clinic and clinical • Do not make too short • Do not make overly specific Sarah J. Kilpatrick, AJOG, 2016.
Keywords: What They Can Do For You Click: AJOG Website www.ajog.org
Keywords: Examples Good Choices Poor Choices High blood pressure Gestation Presentation Oligo • Preeclampsia • Gestational hypertension • Breech delivery • Oligohydramnios Sarah J. Kilpatrick, AJOG, 2016.
Abstract: Rules • 250-500 words (NEW) • Structured • Background (new) • Objective • Study Design • Results • Conclusions For original research
Abstract: Points • Types of non-human animals or species must be in abstract, title and materials and methods • Do not use abbreviations in abstracts Sarah J. Kilpatrick, AJOG, 2016.
Abstract: Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses • Structured summary as per PRISMA • Objective • Data sources • Study eligibility criteria • Study appraisal + synthesis methods • Results • Conclusions Sarah J. Kilpatrick, AJOG, 2016.
PRISMA Guidelines • Click: PRISMA website • Checklist, flow diagram • Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses www.prisma-statement.org
Common Flaws in Abstracts • Aims differ from those in the paper • Numbers differ from those in paper or tables • Secondary (positive) but not primary (negative) results presented • Conclusions are not based on the results presented in the abstract • Alphabet soup (too many abbreviations) Sarah J. Kilpatrick, AJOG, 2016.