Peer Review Congress 2022

September 10, 2022

Chicago, United States

Editors' Perspectives on Adding a Results Table and Limitations Section to Medical Journal Abstracts: A Qualitative Study


data presentation and graphical display

dissemination of information


Objective To assess editors’ experience with and openness to refining journal article abstracts by adding a results table and a limitations header to improve abstract readability and informational content.1-3

Design General medical journals were selected based on journal impact factor rankings: all top 10 ranked journals and 5 among those ranked in the third quartile, published in English, with multiple issues per year, and using a structured abstract. Only one journal from the JAMA Network was selected. Semistructured interviews were conducted with the editor recommended by the journal’s editor in chief. The study ethics approval (exemption) was provided by Dartmouth.

Results Eleven of the 15 invited journals participated (9 from the top 10 and 2 of 5 from the third quartile by impact factor). Interviews were conducted with 4 editors in chief, 3 executive editors, and 4 other editor types by S.W. on a web conferencing platform (1 editor responded in writing) from February 4 to March 4, 2022, and lasted 15 to 20 minutes. Calls were recorded and autotranscribed. All study authors reviewed the full interview transcripts, R.J.W. summarized key themes from transcripts, and all authors reached consensus on abstract results tables key themes (Table 56). One journal had experience publishing abstract results tables. There was strong interest in a limitations header and few concerns about it having any potential harms.

Conclusions These findings provide preliminary support for a trial evaluating the addition of results tables and limitations to abstracts. Limitations of this study are that it may not be representative of all journals and interviews did not include abstract readers or authors.


  1. Bauchner H, Henry R, Golub RM. The restructuring of structured abstracts: adding a table in the results section. JAMA. 2013;309(5):491-492. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.76
  2. Ertl N, Gazette K. A new way of documenting scientific data from medical publications. Karger Gaz. 1969;20(27):1-3.
  3. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited: a progress report. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(1):69-76. doi:10.7326/0003-4819- 113-1-69

Conflict of Interest Disclosures Steven Woloshin serves on the Cochrane Collaboration and the JAMA Internal Medicine editorial boards. Lisa Bero is Senior Research Integrity Editor, Cochrane, and serves on the Cochrane Editorial Board; an academic editor, Meta-Research, PLoS Biology; and a member of the Peer Review Congress Advisory Board but was not involved in the review or decision for this abstract. No other disclosures were reported.

Acknowledgment This paper is dedicated to the memory of Lisa Schwartz, MD, MS, our remarkable partner, colleague, and friend whose work inspired this project. The authors thank the journal editors and staff who participated in interviews.

Next from Peer Review Congress 2022

Assessment of Time and Resources Required to Share Data for 2 Individual Participant Data Meta-analyses

Assessment of Time and Resources Required to Share Data for 2 Individual Participant Data Meta-analyses

Peer Review Congress 2022

Anna Lene Seidler

10 September 2022

Similar lecture

LEWIS: Levenshtein Editing for Unsupervised Text Style Transfer
technical paper

LEWIS: Levenshtein Editing for Unsupervised Text Style Transfer


Machel Reid
Machel Reid and 1 other author

02 August 2021

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

Select topic of interest (you can select more than one)


  • All Lectures
  • For Librarians
  • Resource Center
  • Free Trial
Underline Science, Inc.
1216 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

© 2023 Underline - All rights reserved