Skip to main content

Table 3 Details on inconsistency for the study-validity-related factors between abstracts and full reports

From: A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research

Study-validity-related factor

Number of included studies (reference numbers)

Number of abstract-full-report pairs

Main findings of inconsistent reporting

Research question or objective

3 ([2, 19, 20])

274

Two studies reported high level (98% - 99%) of consistency for study objectives;

One study found 10% difference in both study objectives and conclusions

Population or sample size

11 ([7, 12, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]

1121

Sample sizes in abstracts were found to be smaller (9%), be different from full reports (17% - 78%), or have insufficient information on numbers of enrolled and analyzed participants/subjects (44% - 59%).

Intervention or exposure

1 ([21])

59

Full reports provided different/additional pathogens and/or interventions in two abstract-full-report pairs (3%).

Comparator

0

0

–

Outcome measure

8 ([2, 4, 7, 19, 22,23,24, 26])

647

It was found that inconsistency existed in designating a different primary outcome (4% - 28%), outcome measures were different (59%) between abstracts and full reports, or primary outcome was not stated in abstract (70% - 77%).

Study duration

1 ([20])

51

Sixteen abstracts (31%) reported different study period and/or population from full reports.

Study design

2 ([2, 19])

223

High level of consistency was found for study design (95% - 99%).

Statistical analysis

1 ([2])

159

Few abstracts (8%) reported the same statistical methods as in the full reports.

Result presentation

10 ([2, 3, 4, 12, 19,20,21, 24,25,26])

1131

Results in abstract were different from full reports (13% - 41%), with a statistically significant change leading to a change of study conclusion (6% - 32%), not reporting pertinent negative (40%) and pertinent positive (90%) findings, or selectively reporting favorable results (6%).

Result interpretation

5 ([3, 4, 7, 12, 21])

456

Result interpretation in abstracts was found to be inconsistent (4% - 15%), or overly optimistic (23%).

Conclusion or recommendation

9 ([3, 4, 12, 19, 21,22,23,24, 27])

896

Conclusions in abstracts were reported to be inconsistent (15% - 35%), or with stronger statements than in full reports (17%).