Display options
Cite
Librero J, Peiró S. Comparaciones abstrusas en los resúmenes de ensayos clínicos en revistas médicas españolas. [Abstruse comparisons in abstracts of clinical trials in Spanish medical journals]. Med Clin (Barc). 2001;117(19):732-3doi: 10.1016/s0025-7753(01)72240-3.
Librero, J., & Peiró, S. (2001). Comparaciones abstrusas en los resúmenes de ensayos clínicos en revistas médicas españolas. [Abstruse comparisons in abstracts of clinical trials in Spanish medical journals]. Medicina clinica, 117(19), 732-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-7753(01)72240-3
Librero, J, and Peiró, S. "Comparaciones abstrusas en los resúmenes de ensayos clínicos en revistas médicas españolas." [Abstruse comparisons in abstracts of clinical trials in Spanish medical journals]. Medicina clinica vol. 117,19 (2001): 732-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-7753(01)72240-3
Librero J, Peiró S. Comparaciones abstrusas en los resúmenes de ensayos clínicos en revistas médicas españolas. [Abstruse comparisons in abstracts of clinical trials in Spanish medical journals]. Med Clin (Barc). 2001 Dec 08;117(19):732-3. doi: 10.1016/s0025-7753(01)72240-3. Spanish. PMID: 11737999.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Med Clin (Barc). 2001 Dec 08;117(19):732-3. doi: 10.1016/s0025-7753(01)72240-3.

[Abstruse comparisons in abstracts of clinical trials in Spanish medical journals].

Medicina clinica

[Article in Spanish]
J Librero, S Peiró

Affiliations

  1. Fundación Instituto de Investigación en Servicios de Salud, Valencia, Spain.

PMID: 11737999 DOI: 10.1016/s0025-7753(01)72240-3

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To describe the frequency of abstracts of clinical trials whose information does not allow to assess the clinical relevance of the comparisons made.

METHOD: Review of 64 trials published in the journals Atención Primaria and Medicina Clínica. Abstracts were defined as quantitative or qualitative abtruse when it was not possible to identify the numerical values used in the comparison or when scales were included without specifying their range and clinical implications, respectively.

RESULTS: 43.7% of abstracts were deemed quantitively abstruse, and 75% of 8 including scales were deemed qualitatively abstruse.

CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts of clinical trials should present results in a way that makes it possible to evaluate

MeSH terms

Publication Types