This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David Moher, MSc
Loeb Medical Research Institute Ottawa, Ontario

Drummond Rennie, MD
Deputy Editor (West), JAMA

JAMA. 1995;274(17):1342-1343.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—We are glad Dr Atkins supports our experiment in structured reporting.¹ Atkins raises the issue of the potential difficulty in reporting randomized controlled trials using this format. Similar concerns were also raised with the development of more informative abstracts—"structured abstracts." Evidence to date indicates that structured abstracts have had a positive impact on how the results of studies are communicated.²

There is also evidence that the quality of reporting of structured abstracts is better than that of nonstructured abstracts. Taddio and colleagues³ compared the quality of reporting of 150 nonstructured abstracts (published in 1988 and 1989) and 150 structured abstracts (published in 1991 and 1992) published in the British Medical Journal, Canadian Medical Association Journal, and JAMA. Quality was assessed using a 32-item criteria checklist. The scoring range was between 0 and 100 with higher scores indicating superior quality. Assessors completed their quality assessment blinded . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?