Trial reportEvidence-based medicine2013
A comparison of the accuracy of clinical decisions based on full-text articles and on journal abstracts alone: a study among residents in a tertiary care hospital.
Trial report in Evidence-based medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02508051 (Make a Journal Feel as if it Was Mailed Back From the Future Rather Than the Past so the Reader Will be More Likely to Read and Retain Journal Content), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Make a Journal Feel as if it Was Mailed Back From the Future Rather Than the Past so the Reader Will be More Likely to Read and Retain Journal Content
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reporting of harms in systematic reviews focused on naltrexone: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Prepublication abstract-only reports compared with full-text manuscripts for randomised controlled trials in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2024Pooled it
- Reporting bias is prevalent in systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to endoscopicJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Bias, Study Quality, and Confounding in Temporomandibular Disorder Research Compared to General Orthodontic Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of stemless total shoulder arthroplasty.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Review
- Reporting Bias Is Highly Prevalent in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Related to Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Spin and reporting bias in the use of platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Review
- Caught in the Web of Words: Do LLMs Fall for Spin in Medical Literature?Proceedings of machine learning research · 2025Article
- Spin is Prevalent in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction and Lateral Extra-Articular Tenodesis.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Evaluation of reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials regarding patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement for abstracts.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis.JMIR dermatology · 2022Article
- The presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: A cross-sectional analysis.PloS one · 2022Article
- A scoping review of clinical reasoning research with Asian healthcare professionals.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2021Article
- "Only 50% of randomized trials have high level of confidence in arthroscopy and sports medicine"-a spin-based assessment.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021Article
- Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatments and interventions for smoking cessation.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany clinicians depend solely on journal abstracts to guide clinical decisions.
objectivesThis study aims to determine if there are differences in the accuracy of responses to simulated cases between resident physicians provided with an abstract only and those with full-text articles. It also attempts to describe their information-seeking behaviour.
methodsSeventy-seven resident physicians from four specialty departments of a tertiary care hospital completed a paper-based questionnaire with clinical simulation cases, then randomly assigned to two intervention groups-access to abstracts-only and access to both abstracts and full-text. While having access to medical literature, they completed an online version of the same questionnaire.
findingsThe average improvement across departments was not significantly different between the abstracts-only group and the full-text group (p=0.44), but when accounting for an interaction between intervention and department, the effect was significant (p=0.049) with improvement greater with full-text in the surgery department. Overall, the accuracy of responses was greater after the provision of either abstracts-only or full-text (p<0.0001). Although some residents indicated that 'accumulated knowledge' was sufficient to respond to the patient management questions, in most instances (83% of cases) they still sought medical literature.
conclusionsOur findings support studies that doctors will use evidence when convenient and current evidence improved clinical decisions. The accuracy of decisions improved after the provision of evidence. Clinical decisions guided by full-text articles were more accurate than those guided by abstracts alone, but the results seem to be driven by a significant difference in one department.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.