Ozakinci G, Whitehead R, Sobota A & Coyne J (2013) Inaccurate abstracts in health psychology: The problem and an easily implementable solution. “Well-being, Quality of Life and Caregiving” : 27th Conference of the European Health Psychology Society, Bordeaux, France. Psychology and Health, 28 (Sup1), pp. 14-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2013.810851
Background: Abstracts need to be clearly and accurately written because many readers do not read further when searching literature. We present findings concerning abstracts from three health
psychology journals which frequently publish clinical trials (Health Psychology, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Psychosomatic Medicine).
Methods: We developed a methodology for rating accuracy and bias (or ‘spin’) of abstracts, particularly in terms of declared primary outcome. We searched databases 2006-present, identifying 444 abstracts and rated them.
Findings: Few trials had independently verifiable primary outcomes and this was the case across journals. Most abstracts reported a positive outcome, accomplished by ignoring null or negative primary outcomes or by emphasizing secondary outcomes or post-hoc subgroup analyses.
Discussion: Accuracy in abstracts of clinical trials has implications for the credibility of evidence. Journals need to enforce accurate and transparent abstracts.
Psychology and Health: Volume 28, Issue Sup1
|Publication date online||02/08/2013|
|Conference||“Well-being, Quality of Life and Caregiving” : 27th Conference of the European Health Psychology Society|
|Conference location||Bordeaux, France|