论文摘要的数据准确性问题

Study on accuracy of data in Abstracts of published research articles

通过查阅被Medline收录英文摘要的中文医学专业期刊《中华妇产科杂志》《中华儿科杂志》《中国当代儿科杂志》,探讨论文摘要的数据准确性问题。从2006年全年每种期刊中随机抽取30篇论文,用统计软件进行统计分析。摘要中的数据与全文不同或者在全文中不存在,即认为该摘要为缺陷摘要。发现这3种期刊缺陷摘要的百分比分别为23%、37%和13%,各比值间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结果表明,摘要数据与全文不符或者全文中不存在的现象是比较普遍的,这可能会带来一定程度的误解和误导。应引起编辑同人的重视。

For the purpose of studying the accuracy of data in abstracts, the authors checked three Medline indexed medical journals published in Chinese language： Zhong hua fu chan ke za zhi, Zhong hua er ke za zhi, zhong guo dang dai er ke za zhi. Thirty randomly selected samples per journal were included in this study. Deficient abstract was defined when the data were not consistent to the corresponding part in the text or could not be found in the text. The results show that the proportion of deficient abstracts was 23%, 37% and 13% for these three journals respectively. No significant difference was found with the proportion among the three journals （P 〉 0.05）. The conclusion is that it is common for the data inconsistency in the abstracts comparing with the full text, and some may lead to misunderstanding by the readers.