Background

Abstracts should provide a brief yet comprehensive reporting of all components of a manuscript. Inaccurate reporting may mislead readers and impact citation practices. It was our goal to investigate the reporting quality of abstracts of interventional observational studies in three major pediatric orthopedic journals and to analyze any reporting inconsistencies between those abstracts and their corresponding full-text articles.

Methods

We selected a sample of 55 abstracts and their full-text articles published between 2018 and 2022. Included articles were primary therapeutic research investigating the results of treatments or interventions. Abstracts were scrutinized for reporting quality and inconsistencies with their full-text versions with a 22-itemized checklist. The reporting quality of titles was assessed by a 3-items categorical scale.

Results

In 48 (87%) of articles there were abstract reporting inaccuracies related to patient demographics. The study's follow-up and complications were not reported in 21 (38%) of abstracts each. Most common inconsistencies between the abstracts and full-text articles were related to reporting of inclusion or exclusion criteria in 39 (71%) and study correlations in 27 (49%) of articles. Reporting quality of the titles was insufficient in 33 (60%) of articles.

Conclusions

In our study we found low reporting quality of abstracts and noticeable inconsistencies with full-text articles, especially regarding inclusion or exclusion criteria and study correlations. While the current sample is likely not representative of overall pediatric orthopedic literature, we recommend that authors, reviewers, and editors ensure abstracts are reported accurately, ideally following the appropriate reporting guidelines, and that they double check that there are no inconsistencies between abstracts and full text articles. To capture essential study information, journals should also consider increasing abstract word limits.

中文翻译：

---

报告儿科骨科出版物中摘要的质量以及与全文文章的不一致

背景

摘要应提供手稿所有组成部分的简短而全面的报告。不准确的报告可能会误导读者并影响引用实践。我们的目标是调查三大儿科骨科期刊中介入观察研究摘要的报告质量，并分析这些摘要与其相应全文文章之间的报告不一致之处。

方法

我们选取了 2018 年至 2022 年发表的 55 篇摘要及其全文文章作为样本。纳入的文章是调查治疗或干预结果的主要治疗研究。摘要经过 22 项检查表的报告质量和全文版本的不一致检查。标题的报告质量通过三项分类量表进行评估。

结果

48 篇 (87%) 的文章存在与患者人口统计相关的摘要报告不准确的情况。各 21 份（38%）摘要中未报告该研究的随访情况和并发症。摘要和全文文章之间最常见的不一致与 39 篇 (71%) 文章中纳入或排除标准的报告以及 27 篇 (49%) 文章中的研究相关性有关。33 篇（60%）文章的标题质量报告不足。

结论

在我们的研究中，我们发现摘要的报告质量较低，并且与全文文章存在明显的不一致，特别是在纳入或排除标准以及研究相关性方面。虽然当前样本可能不能代表整个儿科骨科文献，但我们建议作者、审稿人和编辑确保准确报告摘要，最好遵循适当的报告指南，并仔细检查摘要和完整内容之间是否存在不一致。文字文章。为了获取重要的研究信息，期刊还应该考虑增加摘要字数限制。