바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

의학 저널에서 사용되는 구조적 초록의 소표제들에 관한 분석

Abstracts in Medical Science Journals: An Analysis of Subheadings in Structured Abstracts

한국도서관·정보학회지 / Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, (P)2466-2542;
2016, v.47 no.1, pp.199-216
https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.47.1.201603.199
Kim, Eungi (계명대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the current uses of subheadings that appear in medical science journal abstracts and to discuss its potential implications for medical science from the perspectives of library and information science. To conduct this study, the following nine sub-fields in medical science were selected: cancer, ethics, genetics, infectious disease, neurology, pediatrics, immunology, psychiatry, and cardiology. Random sample data were drawn based on the years 2010 to 2015 from the PubMed database. This study investigated the extent of the uses of subheadings, variants of subheadings, and common formation of subheadings with the help of a frequency analysis. The specific findings of this study are summarized as the following: 1) more traditional abstracts are used across almost all sub-fields of medical science; 2) on average, 4.1 subheadings were used in the sample dataset; and 3) the most frequently used set of subheadings is OBJECTIVES, METHODS, RESULTS, and CONCLUSIONS. This subheading set appears to be the de facto standard across all medical science journals. The analysis of subheadings in structured abstracts and the issues raised in this study can be beneficial for journal editors and other academics in medical science as well as library and information science.

keywords
구조적 초록, 비구조적 초록, 이동마디, 목적, 소표제, 방법, 결과, 결론, Structured abstracts, Traditional abstracts, Moves, Subheadings, Objectives, Methods, Results, Conclusions

참고문헌

1.

Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature. 1987. Annals of Internal Medicine, 106: 598-604.

2.

Camps Diego. 2010. “The Abstract: The Letter of Presentation for a Scientific Paper.” Colombia Médica, North America, 41(1): 82-84.

3.

Cleveland, Ana D. and Donald B. Cleveland. 2013. Introduction to Indexing and Abstracting. ABC-CLIO.

4.

Fontelo, Paul, Alex Gavino, and Raymond S. Francis 2013. “Comparing Data Accuracy Between Structured Abstracts and Full-Text Journal Articles: Implications in Their Use for Informing Clinical Decisions.” Evidence Based Medicine, 18(6): 207-211.

5.

Friedl, Jeffrey E. 2006. Mastering Regular Expressions. O'Reilly Media, Inc.

6.

Guimarães, Carlos A. 2006. “Structured Abstracts: Narrative Review.” Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira, 21(4): 263-268.

7.

Hartley, James. 2004. “Current Findings from Research on Structured Abstracts.” Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3): 368.

8.

Hartley, James. 2014. “Current Findings From Research on Structured Abstracts: An Update.”Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102(3): 146.

9.

Hartley, James and Lucy Betts. 2009. “Common Weaknesses in Traditional Abstracts in the Social Sciences.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10): 2010-2018.

10.

Hopewell, Sally et al. 2008. “CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration.” PLoS Med, 5(1): 48-56.

11.

Jamar, Nina, Alenka Sauperl and David Bawden. 2014. “The Components Of Abstracts: The Logical Structure Of Abstracts In The Areas Of Materials Science And Technology And Of Library And Information Science.” New Library World, 115(1-2): 15-33.

12.

Kim, Eungi. 2014. “An Analysis of Move Patterns in Abstracts of Social Sciences Research Articles.” Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 45(2): 283-309.

13.

Lancaster, Frederick W. 1991. Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice. London: Library Association.

14.

Marta, Monica M. 2015. “A Brief History of the Evolution of the Medical Research Article.”Clujul Medical, 88(4): 567.

15.

Nakayama, Takeo et al. 2005. “Adoption of Structured Abstracts by General Medical Journals and Format for a Structured Abstract.” Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(2): 237.

16.

Ripple, Anna M. et al. “A Retrospective Cohort Study of Structured Abstracts in MEDLINE, 1992-2006.” Journal of the Medical Library Association, 99(2): 160.

17.

Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1992. “A Text-Type and Move Analysis Study of Verb Tense and Modality Distribution in Medical English Abstracts.” English for Specific Purposes, 11(2):93-113.

18.

Shimbo, Masashi, Takahiro Yamasaki and Yuji Matsumoto. 2003. “Using Sectioning Information for Text Retrieval: A Case Study With the Medline Abstracts.” In Proceedings of Second International Workshop on Active Mining (AM'03).

19.

Sollaci, Luciana B. and Mauricio G. Pereira. “The Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) Structure: A Fifty-Year Survey.” Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3): 364.

20.

Swales, John M. and Christine B. Feak. 2009. Abstracts and the Writing of Abstracts. Michigan:The University of Michigan Press.

21.

The U.S. National Library of Medicine Subheadings. 2015. PubMed Help. <http:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3827/table/pubmedhelp.T.mesh_subheadings> [cited 2016. 3. 12]

한국도서관·정보학회지