Skip to main content
Article
Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews
JAMA
  • Elaine Beller, Bond University
  • Paul P. Glasziou, Bond University
  • Sally Hopewell, Oxford University
  • Douglas G Altman, Oxford University
Date of this Version
11-9-2011
Document Type
Letter to the Editor
Publication Details

Published version

Beller, E.M., Glasziou, P.P., Hopewell, S., & Altman,D.G. (2011). Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews. JAMA, 306(18), 1981-2

Access the journal

© Copyright American Medical Association, 2011

Abstract
Extract: Clinicians commonly misinterpret systematic review abstracts: a recent study showed many arrived at incorrect conclusions, and only 62% correctly identified the direction of the main effect.//.Interpreting numerical results requires statistical knowledge that many clinicians lack. To ensure correct interpretation, abstracts should give the direction and size of effects both in words and numerically. Because systematic reviews are important and widely used summaries of primary research, we decided to examine a sample of systematic review abstracts to assess the nature and extent of any deficiencies in reporting.
Citation Information
Elaine Beller, Paul P. Glasziou, Sally Hopewell and Douglas G Altman. "Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews" JAMA Vol. 306 Iss. 18 (2011) p. 1981 - 1982 ISSN: 1538-3598
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/paul_glasziou/89/