II. Review Articles (Including Meta-Analysis)

Review articles and articles reporting results of meta-analyses should prepare an abstract of no more than 25 words under the following headings: “Objective,” “Data Sources,” “Study Selection,” “Data Extraction,” “Data Synthesis,” and “Conclusions.”

Objective: The abstract should begin with a precise statement of the primary objective of the review. The focus of this statement should be guided by whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy or prevention. It should include information about the specific population, intervention or exposrue and test or outcome that is being reviewed.

Data Source: A succinct summary of data sources should be given, including any time restrictions. If a bibiographic data base is used, the exact indexing terms used for article retrieval should be stated, includihng any constrains (e.g. English Language or human). See orgininal article for greater information.

Study Selection: The abstract should describe the criteria used to select studies for detailed review from among studies identified as relevant to the topic. See orgininal article for greater information.

Data Extraction: Guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity (such as criteria for causal inference) should be described. The method by which the guidelins were applied wshould be stated; for example, independent extraction by multiple observers.

Data Synthesis: The main results of the review, wheterh qualitative or quantitative, should be stated. Methods used to obtain these results should be outlined. See orgininal article for greater information.

Conclusion: The conclusions and their applications should be clearly stated, limiting generalization to the domain of the review. The need for new studies may be suggested.

Lawrence DJ, Structured abstracts and JMPT , Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1992;15:
77-82


See following sample abstract:

Sample Structured Abstract for Review Articles (Including Meta-Analysis)

Hestbaek L, Leboeuf-Yde C. Are chiropractic tests for the lumbo-pelvic spine reliable and valid? A systematic critical literature review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000 May;23(4):258-75

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the peer-reviewed literature about the reliability and validity of chiropractic tests used to determine the need for spinal manipulative therapy of the lumbo-pelvic spine, taking into account the quality of the studies. DATA SOURCES: The CHIROLARS database was searched for the years 1976 to 1995 with the following index terms: "chiropractic tests," "chiropractic adjusting technique," "motion palpation," "movement palpation," "leg length," "applied kinesiology," and "sacrooccipital technique." In addition, a manual search was performed at the libraries of the Nordic Institute of Chiropractic and Clinical Biomechanics, Odense, Denmark, and the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic, Bournemouth, United Kingdom. STUDY SELECTION: Studies pertaining to intraexaminer reliability, interexaminer reliability, and/or validity of chiropractic evaluation of the lumbo-pelvic spine were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data quality were assessed independently by the two reviewers, with a quality score based on predefined methodologic criteria. Results of the studies were then evaluated in relation to quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: None of the tests studied had been sufficiently evaluated in relation to reliability and validity. Only tests for palpation for pain had consistently acceptable results. Motion palpation of the lumbar spine might be valid but showed poor reliability, whereas motion palpation of the sacroiliac joints seemed to be slightly reliable but was not shown to be valid. Measures of leg-length inequality seemed to correlate with radiographic measurements but consensus on method and interpretation is lacking. For the sacrooccipital technique, some evidence favors the validity of the arm-fossa test but the rest of the test regimen remains poorly documented. Documentation of applied kinesiology was not available. Palpation for muscle tension, palpation for misalignment, and visual inspection were either undocumented, unreliable, or not valid. CONCLUSION: The detection of the manipulative lesion in the lumbo-pelvic spine depends on valid and reliable tests. Because such tests have not been established, the presence of the manipulative lesion remains hypothetical. Great effort is needed to develop, establish, and enforce valid and reliable test procedures.


MeSH Terms: Chiropractic/methods, Evaluation Studies, Female, Human, Lumbar Vertebrae, Lumbosacral Region, Male, Manipulation, Spinal/methods, Observer Variation, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Spinal Diseases/therapy, Spinal Diseases/diagnosis.