Skip to main content

Table 3 Inconsistencies between abstracts and full-text articles (n = 55)*

From: Reporting quality of abstracts and inconsistencies with full text articles in pediatric orthopedic publications

Type of inconsistency

No. of articles (%)

Yes

No

Have any secondary (additional) study objectives been reported in the full-text but not in the abstract?

12 (22)

43 (78)

Are there any numerical discrepancies between the patient and disease demographics reported in the abstract and those reported in the full-text?

6 (11)

49 (89)

Have any additional inclusion or exclusion criteria been reported in the full-text but not in the abstract?

39 (71)

16 (29)

Have any secondary (additional) outcome measures been reported in the full-text but not in the abstract?

18 (33)

37 (67)

Have any additional study correlations been reported in the full-text but not in the abstract?

27 (49)

28 (51)

Are study conclusions reported in the abstract fully justified by the results in the full-text? That is, not exaggerated or excessively generalized? (n = 51)a

42/51 (82)

9/51 (18)

Are study implications reported in the abstract relevant or applicable as per information present in the full-text? (n = 7)b

7/7 (100)

0 (0)

  1. *Missing information refers to information missing in either the abstract or the full-text i.e., could be present in the abstract and missing from full-text article or vice versa, an, refers to the denominator or number of articles that accurately fulfilled the debated item in the first place, in 4 articles it was (NA), non-applicable; bin 48 articles it was (NA), non-applicable