Structured Abstracts. Narrative Review

25Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: To summarize the main findings from research on structured abstracts. Methods: A narrative review of all the relevant papers known to the author was conducted. Results: Authors and readers judged the structured abstracts to be more useful than traditional ones. In 1987 the Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature proposed guidelines for informative seven-headings abstracts. In 1990 Haynes et al. reconsidered the structured abstract of clinical research and review articles and proposed revised guidelines. Nowadays, most abstracts are informative, and the most commonly used structure is IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. Conclusions: There are many variations in the structured-abstract formats prescribed by different journals. But even in recent years, not all abstracts of original articles are structured. More research is needed on a number of questions related to the quality and utility of structured abstracts.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Guimarães, C. A. (2006). Structured Abstracts. Narrative Review. Acta Cirurgica Brasileira. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-86502006000400014

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free