Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2014
Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers' interpretation: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01848782 (Impact of Adding a Limitation Section in Abstract of Systematic Review on Interpretation by Readers), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
Impact of Adding a Limitation Section in Abstract of Systematic Review on Interpretation by Readers: a Randomised Controlled Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Misleading readers without lies: understanding spin and its relevance to acupuncture research.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Development, explanation, and presentation of the Physical Literacy Interventions Reporting Template (PLIRT).The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Article
- Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Limitations in Medical Research: Recognition, Influence, and Warning.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo allow an accurate evaluation of abstracts of systematic reviews, the PRISMA Statement recommends that the limitations of the evidence (e.g., risk of bias, publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision) should be described in the abstract. We aimed to evaluate the impact of adding such limitations sections on reader's interpretation.
methodWe performed a two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial (RCT) using a sample of 30 abstracts of systematic reviews evaluating the effects of healthcare intervention with conclusions favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental treatments. Two formats of these abstracts were derived: one reported without and one with a standardized limitations section written according to the PRISMA statement for abstracts. The primary outcome was readers' confidence in the results of the systematic review as stated in the abstract assessed by a Likert scale from 0, not at all confident, to 10, very confident. In total, 300 participants (corresponding authors of RCT reports indexed in PubMed) were randomized by a web-based randomization procedure to interpret one abstract with a limitations section (n = 150) or without a limitations section (n = 150). Participants were blinded to the study hypothesis.
resultsAdding a limitations section did not modify readers' interpretation of findings in terms of confidence in the results (mean difference [95% confidence interval] 0.19 [-0.37-0.74], p = 0.50), confidence in the validity of the conclusions (0.07 [-0.49-0.62], p = 0.80), or benefit of the experimental intervention (0.12 [-0.42-0.44], p = 0.65).This study is limited because the participants were expert-readers and are not representative of all systematic review readers.
conclusionAdding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews did not affect readers' interpretation of the abstract results. Other studies are needed to confirm the results and explore the impact of a limitations section on a less expert panel of participants.
trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov (NCT01848782).
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.