医学论文优秀英语摘要的写作及难句翻译分享

真诚为您提供优质参考资料，若有不当之处，请指正。真诚为您提供优质参考资料，若有不当之处，请指正。19/19真诚为您提供优质参考资料，若有不当之处，请指正。医学论文英语摘要的写作及难句翻译来源：赛恩斯

[摘要]根据自己在编审医学论文英文摘要工作中的实际经验，总结和归纳在翻译医学论文摘要时应注意的问题及使用的方法、策略，重点论述医学论文英文摘要的写作格式、文章标题的表达方式、语态和时态的使用、长难句翻译等。

[关键词]医学论文；英语摘要；写作；翻译

为繁荣医学教育，提高医疗水平，传播医学知识，促进同国外的医学交流，推动医学科学的进步，我国目前已出版发行了数百种医学期刊。为了方便论文的检索和查阅，保持同国外医学期刊的一致性，医学论文大多要求书写中、英文摘要。笔者在医学期刊的英文编辑工作中发现，相当一部分摘要的书写不够规范，部分XXX在遇到长句及疑难句子时就不知从何下手，有的将检索的外文资料生搬硬抄，同自己的原文完全不对应。笔者特撰写此文，以期对提高广大医务工XXX书写英文摘要的水平、提高医学论文的质量有所帮助。

1

英文摘要的写作格式医学论文摘要的格式目前主要采用结构式摘要(structuredabstract)，它是由加拿大McMaster大学临床流行病学和生物统计学教授Haynes博士于1990年4月首先提出的。而几乎在同年，美国《内科学纪事》(AnnalsofInternalMedicine'AnnInternMed)在国际上率先应用结构式摘要，随之，世界各国的医学期刊都采用了结构式摘要。这些结构式摘要有8段式、7段式、6段式、5段式、4段式及3段式等，内容主要包括研究目的、研究设计、研究单位、研究对象或病人、处理方法、检测方法、结果及结论共8项。而在实际应用中，8段式结构式摘要逐渐简化为4段式。我国大多数医学期刊都采用了4段式结构式摘要，即目的、方法、结果和结论。（1）目的(objective)：简要说明研究的目的，表明研究的范围、内容和重要性，常常涵盖文章的标题内容。（2）方法(methods)：简要说明研究课题的设计思路，使用何种材料和方法，如何对照分组，如何处理数据等。（3）结果(results)：简要介绍研究的主要结果和数据，有何新发现，说明其价值及局限。此外，还要给出结果的置信值，统计学显著性检验的确切值。（4）结论(conclusion)：简要对以上的研究结果进行分析或讨论，并进行总结，给出符合科学规律的结论。为了更好地说明问题，我们来看下例：（1）目的：探讨螺旋CT(SCT)对结、直肠癌术前分期的价值。（2）方法：51例疑诊结、直肠肿瘤的患者行SCT扫描，扫描前清洁肠道，并经直肠注气，扫描范围从膈顶至耻骨联合。51例中，41例经直肠镜或手术病理证实为结、直肠癌，其中31例有手术、SCT等完整资料参与分期研究，将影像诊断与手术病理结果进行对照。（3）结果：SCT总的分期准确率为58.1%(18/31)，判断T分期的准确率为84.4%(27/32)'N分期的准确率为61.3%(19/31)。评价肿瘤浆膜外侵犯的敏感性和特异性分别为92.9%和50.0%。（4）结论：SCT扫描对结、直肠癌的术前分期有重要价值，有助于判断肿瘤浆膜外侵犯及区域淋巴结和远处转移情况。其对应的英文摘要为：（1）Objective：ToevaluatespiralCT(SCT)inthepreoperativestagingofcolorectalcarcinomas.（2）Methods：Fifty?onepatientssuspiciousofhavingcolorectalcarcinomaunderwentspiralCTscansperformedfromthedomeofthediaphragmtosymphysispubicaaftercleansingenemaandrectalairinsufflation.41ofthe51patientswereprovedtohavecolorectalcarcinomabycolonoscopyand/orpathology.ThefindingsofSCTof31patientstreatedwithsurgerywerecomparedwiththesurgicalpathologicalexaminationforstaging.（3）Results：TheoverallaccuracyrateofSCTstagingwas58.1%(18/31).ForevaluationofTstagingandNstaging'theaccuracyrateswere84.4%(27/32)and61.3%(19/31).Sensitivityandspecificityforserosalinfiltrationwere92.9%and50.0%.（4）Conclusion：SCTscan'playingasignificantroleinthepreoperativestagingofcolorectalcarcinoma'isusefultodetecttheserosalinfiltration'lymphnodeanddistantmetastasis.上述摘要中英文对应准确，叙述简练，基本上概括了全文的主要内容，便于专家和编辑的审稿和校对，也便于医务工XXX以及普通读者的查阅和检索。

2

英文摘要写作与翻译应注意的问题众所周知，任何英文书面材料只有用英文思维、构思、写作，才可能成为比较地道的英文文章，医学论文摘要也是这样，最好直接用英文书写。然而笔者在实际工作中以及同论文XXX的交流中了解到，80%以上的医务工XXX不能做到这一点。他们基本上要首先写出中文摘要，再按照中文内容翻译成英文。在写作和翻译的过程中，他们不可避免地都会犯下一些错误。下面将重点讨论摘要写作与翻译中应注意的问题。

2.1

文章标题文章标题具备信息功能（提供文章的主要内容）、祈使功能（吸引读者阅读和购买）、美感功能（简单明了、新颖、醒目）和检索功能（方便读者和科技工XXX检索、查阅及引用）。医学论文的标题还有它自己的特点，即有较多的专业术语和较长的字数。对于它们的翻译，要忠实于原文，一般都采用直译方法，并且要注意各成分之间的关系。请看下例：“针刺对冠心病心绞痛患者左心功能状态的影响”翻译：Theacupunctureeffectonleftventricularfunctioninpatientswithcoronaryheartdiseaseandanginapectoris分析：“影响”为中心词，但它在本文中的意思为“疗效”，因为“针刺”是种治疗疾病的方法，“针刺的疗效”可译为“acupunctureeffect”。“左心功能状态”是表类属的定语，应紧跟“影响”，“患者”修饰“左心功能状态”，“冠心病心绞痛”修饰“患者”。层层修饰关系在译文中均以介词连接，译文简洁而明晰。

2.2

语态在英语中，被动语态的使用远不及主动语态广泛。然而，在翻译医学论文摘要时，却常常采用第三人称的被动语态。这是因为医学研究着重于客观事物和过程的描述，使得整项活动更显出科学性。同时，被动语态的句子在结构上有较大的调节余地，有利于采用必要的修辞手段，扩大句子的信息量，从而突出重要的概念、问题、事实、结论等内容。请看下例：“采用Westernblotting技术检测37例食管鳞状细胞癌组织、癌旁组织、区域淋巴结和相应正常食管组织中P73蛋白的表达，并探讨与食管临床病理特征的关系。”翻译：TheexpressionofP73proteinwasdetectedbyWesternblottingin37casesofesophagealtumortissues'para?cancertissues'regionallymphnodesandmatchedesophagealnormaltissues'andtheirrelationtoclinicalpathologiccharacteristicsofesophagealcancerwasexplored.分析：(P73蛋白的)“表达”和“关系”是两个中心词，只有使用被动语态，才能突出这两个词。“检测”和“探讨”都是科学研究的过程，使用被动语态就是强调其科学性。整个译句使用被动语态达到的效果是结构紧凑，上下联贯。

2.3

时态时态是大多数XXX遇到的一大难题，他们不知何时该用何种时态。有时全文从头到尾只用一种时态，或几种时态杂乱交错，给人不知所云的感觉。笔者通过多年对医学论文英文摘要的加工、翻译发现'医学论文摘要中所采用的时态主要是一般现在时和一般过去时，偶尔也会出现完成时。而它们的功能也很明确，即，一般现在时（偶尔有现在完成时）使用于摘要的目的与结论当中。对于摘要的目的，现在常常省略主语，只用不定式短语进行表达。如“tostudy;toevaluate;tounderstand”等；而一般过去时（偶尔有过去完成时）则常常用于摘要的方法和结果之中。请看下例：例1：“106例宫颈癌均行广泛性子宫切除和盆腔淋巴结清除术，其中78例行术前放疗（体外加腔内放疗），16例采用腔内放疗加手术，12例术后放疗。”翻译：106patientswithcervicalcarcinomawerealltreatedbyradicalhysterectomyandpelviclymphadenectomy'ofwhom78hadpreoperativeradiotherapy'(externalradiationandbrachytherapy)'16combinationofbrachytherapyandradicaloperation'12adjuvantpostoperativeradiotherapy.分析：上文是摘要“方法”中的一句。主句使用了过去时，从句则使用了过去完成时。之所以使用这两种时态，是因为在撰写此文时，研究工作已经结束，研究过程中所做的一切已成过去。读者阅过就一目了然。例2：“初步结果显示肝素酶基因表达可能为肺癌细胞获得转移活性的可靠标志之一，其检测可用于辅助判断肺癌患者预后。”翻译：Thepreliminaryresultssuggestthattheexpressionofheparanasegenemaybeoneofthereliablemarkersforthemetastasticactivitygainedbythelungcancercellsandcanbeusedclinicallyinpredictingtheprognosisofpatients.分析：这是摘要“结论”中的一句，是论文XXX对研究工作进行的总结，并指出其对当前实际工作的指导意义，因此使用的是一般现在时。当然，使用何种时态不能一概而论。在翻译时，要根据原文中所要表达的意思来最后确定。

3

长、难句的翻译不管是英语还是汉语医学文章，都有一个共同的特点，即它们的句子通常较长，结构较复杂，有时，长长的一段文字仅由一句话组成。在医学论文摘要中更是如此，要做好它们的互译还真不容易。这是因为汉语句子建构在意念主轴(thought?pivot)上'英语句子建构在形式（或主谓）主轴(form?pivotorsubject?predict?pivot)上。也就是说，虽然句子是表达完整意义的语言单位，汉语强调的是意义，不太强调句子结构，许多句子没有主语，还有的句子主语不明显，但意义是明确的；而英语句子特别强调句子结构，绝大多数句子需要主语和谓语。这就要求在汉译英过程中注意句意的转换，学会抓找中心词和使用英语中的各个关联词。请看下列例子：例1：“以BPDE诱导恶性转化的人支气管上皮细胞株16HBE为模型，采用cDNA代表性差异分析方法，比较转化细胞及正常对照细胞间基因表达的差异，分离恶变细胞中差异表达的cDNA片段。”翻译：Themalignanttransformationofhumanbronchialcellline16HBEinducedbyBPDEwasusedasamodelforcomparinggeneexpressionbetweenthetransformedcellsandcontrols.cDNArepresentationaldifferenceanalysiswasperformedtoisolatedifferentiallyexpressedcDNAfragmentintransformedcells.分析：在中文原句中，出现了“以……”、“采用……”以及“比较……”、“分离……”这两个看似并列的机构'如果按照原文翻译'就会不知所云。因此，根据句意和英语的句子结构，将原文分成两层意思，按照两个句子去翻译。在第一层意思中，“上皮细胞株”在句中是中心词，但在实际翻译中，应通过所有格形式将“恶性转化”处理为中心词。翻译时，将它们的位置颠倒过来，并且为了保持和中文“以…”结构相一致，使用了被动语态。第二层意思中，“cDNA代表性差异分析方法”是中心词。其他结构按照英文习惯出现，层次分明，出落自然，毫无累赘之感。例2：“这些感受器是神经末梢，它们嵌入血管壁，根据该血管扩张的程度发出冲动。”翻译：Thesereceptorsarenerveendingsthatdischargeimpulsesaccordingtotheextentofstretchinthewallofthevesselsinwhichtheyareimbedded.分析：原文虽然不是太长'但如果按照中文结构去译'就显得很幼稚。因此'就应使用英语中的各个关联词及关联结构。本句中采用的是定语分译法'即用一个主句带上一个定语从句'该定语从句又带上它自己的定语从句'这不仅符合英文习惯'而且逻辑性很强。整个译文层次明晰、流畅自然。以上是笔者在工作中的一些探索'希望能对进行医学论文英语摘要写作的医务工XXX有所启发。StructuredAbstractsPrinter-friendlyVersionWhatareStructuredAbstracts?Astructuredabstractisanabstractwithdistinct,labeledsections(e.g.,Introduction,Methods,Results,Discussion)forrapidcomprehension(seeExample1).Example1:

AmJInfectControl.2008Mar;36(2):118-22.

Riskfactorsandmortalityinpatientswithnosocomialstaphylococcusaureusbacteremia.

WangFD,ChenYY,ChenTL,LiuCY.

SectionofInfectiousDiseases,DepartmentofMedicine,TaipeiVeteransGeneralHospital,Taipei,Taiwan.fdwang@.tw

BACKGROUND:Infectionsduetomethicillin-resistantStaphylococcusaureushavebecomeincreasinglycommoninhospitalsworldwide.Saureuscontinuestobeacauseofnosocomialbacteremia.METHODS:Weanalyzedtheclinicalsignificance(mortality)ofMRSAandmethicillin-susceptibleSaureusbacteremiainaretrospectivecohortstudyina2900-bedtertiaryreferralmedicalcenter.Survivalandlogisticregressionanalyseswereusedtodeterminetheriskfactorsandprognosticfactorsofmortality.RESULTS:Duringthe15-yearperiod,1148patientswerediagnosedwithnosocomialSaureusbacteremia.AftercontrollingpotentialriskfactorsforMRSAbacteremiaonlogisticregressionanalysis,service,admissiondayspriortobacteremia,age,mechanicalventilator,andcentralvenouscatheter(CVC)wereindependentriskfactorsforMRSA.ThecrudemortalityrateofSaureusbacteremiawas44.1%.ThedifferencebetweenthemortalityratesofMRSA(49.8%)andMSSAbacteremia(27.6%)was22.2%(P<.001).Uponlogisticregressionanalysis,themortalitywithMRSAbacteremiawasrevealedtobe1.78timeshigherthanMSSA(P<.001).Theotherpredictedprognosticfactorsincludedage,neoplasms,durationofhospitalstayafterbacteremia,presenceofmechanicalventilator,anduseofCVC.CONCLUSIONS:ResistancetomethicillinwasanimportantindependentprognosticfactorforpatientswithSaureusbacteremia.

PMID:18313513[PubMed-indexedforMEDLINE]

WhatKindsofStructuresareused?Standardizedformatsforstructuredabstractshavebeendefinedfororiginalresearchstudies,reviewarticlesandclinicalpracticeguidelines(1,2).TheIMRADformat(INTRODUCTION,METHODS,RESULTS,DISCUSSION),adefactostandardthatreflectstheprocessofscientificdiscovery(3),iscommonlyusedasastructureforjournalabstracts(4,5).TheCONSORT(ConsolidatedStandardsofReportingTrials)Grouphasrecentlyissuedanewguidelineforreportingrandomizedcontrolledtrials(RCTs)injournalandconferenceabstractsbydevelopingaminimumlistofessentialitemsthatauthorsshouldconsiderwhenreportingthemainresultsofaRCTinanyjournalorconferenceabstract.CONSORTforAbstractsrecommendsthatabstractsrelatingtoRCTshaveastructuredformat(6).WhyUseStructuredAbstracts?Structuredabstractshaveseveraladvantagesforauthorsandreaders.Theseformatsweredevelopedinthelate1980sandearly1990stoassisthealthprofessionalsinselectingclinicallyrelevantandmethodologicallyvalidjournalarticles.Theyalsoguideauthorsinsummarizingthecontentoftheirmanuscriptsprecisely,facilitatethepeer-reviewprocessformanuscriptssubmittedforpublication,andenhancecomputerizedliteraturesearching(1,2).TheNationalLibraryofMedicine(NLM)studiedstructuredabstractsinMEDLINE®from1989-1991andpublishedanarticlecharacterizingstructuredabstractsbyexaminingtheoccurrenceofstructuredabstracts;characteristicsofMEDLINErecordswithstructuredabstracts;editorialpoliciesofselectedMEDLINEjournals,andarandomsampleofstructuredabstracts(7).PlansareunderwaytoupdateNLMresearchonstructuredabstractsinMEDLINE/PubMed®.TheInternationalCommitteeofMedicalJournalEditors(ICMJE,ofwhichNLMisasittingmember),whose"UniformRequirementsforManuscriptsSubmittedtoBiomedicalJournals"documentprovidesgeneralguidelinesfortheformatofmanuscriptssubmittedtojournals,endorsestheuseofstructuredabstracts.ICMJEdoesacknowledgetheformatrequiredforstructuredabstractsdiffersfromjournaltojournalandthatsomejournalsusemorethanonestructure(8).NLMFormattingofStructuredAbstractsNLMusesalluppercaselettersforthelabelsthatappearinstructuredabstractsinMEDLINE/PubMedcitations(seeExample1).Adoptionofstructuredabstractsbygeneralmedicaljournalsandformatforastructuredabstract*AbstractBackground:Theuseofastructuredabstracthasbeenrecommendedinreportingmedicalliteraturetoquicklyconveynecessaryinformationtoeditorsandreaders.Theuseofstructuredabstractsincreasedduringthemid-1990s;however,recentpracticehasyettobeanalyzed.Objectives:Thisarticleexploredactualreportingpatternsofabstractsrecentlypublishedinselectedmedicaljournalsandexaminedwhatthesejournalsrequiredofabstracts(structuredorotherwiseand,ifstructured,whichformat).Methods:Thetopthirtyjournalsaccordingtoimpactfactorsnotedinthe“Medicine,GeneralandInternal”categoryoftheISIJournalCitationReports(2000)weresampled.ArticlesoforiginalcontributionspublishedbyeachjournalinJanuary2001wereexamined.Clusteranalysiswasperformedtoclassifythepatternsofstructuredabstractsobjectively.Journals'instructionstoauthorsforwritinganarticleabstractwerealsoexamined.Results:Among304originalarticlesthatincludedabstracts,188(61.8%)hadstructuredand116(38.2%)hadunstructuredabstracts.Onehundredtwenty-five(66.5%)oftheabstractsusedtheintroduction,methods,results,anddiscussion(IMRAD)format,and63(33.5%)usedthe8-headingformatproposedbyHaynesetal.Twenty-onejournalsrequestedstructuredabstractsintheirinstructionstoauthors;8journalsrequestedthe8-headingformat;and1journalrequesteditonlyforinterventionstudies.Conclusions:Eveninrecentyears,notallabstractsoforiginalarticlesarestructured.Theeight-headingformatwasneithercommonlyusedinactualreportingpatternsnornotedinjournalinstructionstoauthors.INTRODUCTIONToassistcliniciansinquicklyfindingarticlesthatarebothscientificallysoundandapplicabletotheirpractices,theAdHocWorkingGroupforCriticalAppraisaloftheMedicalLiteratureproposed,in1987,aseven-headingformatforinformativeabstractsinclinicalarticles[1,2].AcceptingAltman'sproposal[3],Haynesetal.,in1990,revisedtheformatandcontentrequirementsforstructuredabstractstoaneight-headingformat(objective,design,setting,patients,intervention,mainoutcomemeasures,results,andconclusionsfororiginalarticles)[4].In1993,theInternationalCommitteeofMedicalJournalEditors(theso-called“Vancouvergroup”)recommended,inthe“UniformRequirementsforJournalsSubmittedtoBiomedicalJournals,”theuseofstructuredabstracts[5].Followingtheseproposals,medicaljournalsinEuropeandtheUnitedStateshavetriedtoprovidemoreinformativeabstractsforarticlesofclinicalinterest.Whethertheadoptionofstructuredabstractscouldimprovethequalityofarticlescontinuestobecontroversial[6,7].However,itiscertainthatstructuredabstractsmakeiteasierforclinicalreaderstoselectappropriatearticlesmorequicklyandfacilitatepeerreviewbeforepublication.SecondaryjournalsliketheACPJournalClub,publishedbytheAmericanCollegeofPhysicians,arerecognizedasvaluedinformationresourcesforpracticingevidence-basedmedicine[8]andhaveadoptedstructuredabstracts.Harbourtetal.[9]reviewedarticleslistedonMEDLINEfrom1989to1991andfound3,873articlesthatincludedstructuredabstracts;boththenumberofarticleswithstructuredabstractsandthenumberofjournalspublishingthemhadincreased.Kulkarni[10]reportedthat28.5%ofclinicaltrialreportslistedonMEDLINEinthefirsthalfofthe1990sincludedstructuredabstractsandthatnumbercontinuedtoincreaseto71%bythelatterhalfof1995.Eveninnon-English-speakingcountries,increasinglymorejournalsareadoptingstructuredabstracts;however,thenumberofstructuredabstractsprovidedbyjournalsdifferssignificantlybetweencountries[11,12].Theintroduction,methods,results,anddiscussion(IMRAD)format[13,14]andtheeight-headingformatarewellknownforstructuredabstractsinoriginalarticles.However,norecentdataexistonhowmanyjournalsprovidestructuredabstractsandwhatabstractformatisrequired.Nosystematicresearchhasbeenconductedonthecontentofthejournals'instructionsforauthorsregardingstructuredabstracts.Thisstudywasconductedtofindouthowmanyoriginalarticlespublishedinwell-knownmedicaljournalsincludedstructuredabstracts,toidentifytheformatsofsuchstructuredabstracts,andtoseewhatabstractformatthejournalsrequired,structuredorotherwise,and,ifstructured,whichformat.METHODSThetopthirtyjournalsaccordingtoimpactfactorsnotedinthe“Medicine,GeneralandInternal”categoryofISI'sJournalCitationReports(2000)wereselected.Althoughimpactfactorsarenotdirectlyrelatedtojournalquality[15,16],theycanbeusedasanobjectiveselectioncriteriaforjournalsgiventhattheyreflectajournal'simpactintermsofhowoftenitiscited.AninvestigationwasconductedtoidentifyhowmanyofthesejournalsprovidedstructuredabstractsasofJanuary2001.Becausefourjournals(AnnualReviewofMedicine,Amyloid,AnnalsofMedicine,andBritishMedicalBulletin)hadaninsufficientnumberoforiginalarticlesintheJanuary2001issue,theinvestigationcontinuedintoFebruary2001.PubMedwasusedtoextracttheabstractstoexaminetheirformats.Toeliminatemanuscriptsthatwerenotoriginal,thefollowingcategorieswereexcludedfromthesearch:“review,”“meta-analysis,”“historicalarticle,”“legalcases,”“consensusdevelopmentconference,”“comment,”“guideline,”“practiceguideline,”and“biography.”“Meta-analysis”articlesresembleoriginalcontributionsmorethantraditionalnarrativereviews.Asix-headingformatofstructuredabstractsforreviewresearch[4],whichisnearlyequivalenttoa“systematicreview”ora“meta-analysis,”wasassessedindependentlyfromoriginalarticles.Theauthorsexcluded“meta-analysis”inthepresentexaminationtofocusontheformatofstructuredabstractsinoriginalarticles.Asearchformulawascreatedasfollows:Journalname[ta]AND2001/01["]NOT(review[pt]ORmeta-analysis[pt]ORhistoricalarticle[pt]ORlegalcases[pt]ORconsensusdevelopmentconference[pt]ORcomment[pt]ORguideline[pt]ORpracticeguideline[pt]ORbiography[pt])Toclassifytheabstractpatternsobjectively,theauthorsconductedaclusteranalysis(Ward'smethod)ofthestructuredabstractsextractedfromPubMedusingstatisticalsoftware(JMP,SASInstitute).Thejournals'instructionsforauthorsconcerningtheformatofabstractswereobtainedfromeachjournalorcollectedfromWebsitesinFebruary2002.RESULTSWeretrievedatotalof467hitsfrom27journals.NooriginalarticleswereretrievedfromtheAnnualReviewofMedicine,ProceedingsoftheAssociationofAmericanPhysicians,orArchivesofFamilyMedicineusingtheabovesearch.Thefirsttwojournalsmainlypublishedpapersotherthanoriginalcontributions,andtheArchivesofFamilyMedicineendedin2000.Amongthem,304articlesincludedabstracts,188(61.8%)ofwhichwerestructured,while116(38.2%)wereunstructured).AbstractsprovidedbytheNewEnglandJournalofMedicine,BritishMedicalJournal,and2otherjournalswerestructured,and70%ormoreofthoseintheJournalofAmericanMedicalAssociation(JAMA),TheLancet,and7otherjournalswerestructured.Twentyofthe21abstractsprovidedbyJAMAwerestructured(formatswith8headings),and19ofthe21abstractsprovidedbyTheLancetwerestructured(IMRADformat).In5ofthejournals,fewerthan70%oftheabstractswerestructured.AllabstractsprovidedbyMedicine,Amyloid,and6otherjournalswereunstructured.Variouspatternswereobservedinthe188structuredabstractsretrievedfromoursearch,andthestructuredformatsvariedeveninthesamejournal.Thirty-oneheadingswereidentifiedfromthestructuredabstracts,whichwereexaminedandsummarizedinto11categories).Headingssuchas“methodandresults,”whichobviouslyincluded2differentheadingsin1,werecountedas2differentheadings.Usingadendrogrambuiltbyclusteranalysis,thestructuredabstractswerecategorizedintoformatswith8headings(andtheirvariations)andtheIMRADformat(anditsvariations).Resultsshowedthat125(66.5%)ofthe188structuredabstractsadoptedtheIMRADformat,and63(33.5%)adoptedtheformatwith8headings.Examinationofthejournals'instructionsforauthorsindicatedthateightjournals,includingJAMAandAnnalsofInternalMedicine,usedtheeight-headingformat,whilethirteenjournals,includingtheNewEnglandJournalofMedicineandTheLancet,usedtheIMRADformat.Sixotherjournals,includingtheAnnualReviewofMedicineandMedicine,didnotspecificallyrecommendtheuseofastructuredformat.NoarticleswereretrievedviaPubMedfromthefollowingthreejournals:ProceedingsoftheAssociationofAmericanPhysicians,ArchivesofFamilyMedicine,andBritishMedicalBulletin;theirinstructionsforauthorswerealsonotavailable.Twenty-sixofthetwenty-sevenjournalsexaminedprovidedabstractsconformingtotheinstructionsforauthors.TheJournalofFamilyPracticeindicatedeight-headingabstractsweretobeused,butthreeoutofthefourabstractsretrievedwereIMRADformat.DISCUSSIONTherelationshipbetweenthe8-headingformatandtheIMRADformatisshownin.The8-headingformatrequestsauthorsofarticlestospecifyanddetailtheirresearchdesignandresults[4].Instructuredabstracts,authorsareaskedtodescribetheirresearch'slimitations[17],whichareoccasionallyobscuredinthetraditionalnarrativeformatofabstracts.Accordingly,diffusionofstructuredabstractsinmedicaljournals,torapidlyconveynecessaryinformationforclinicalapplication,canbesaidtoreflectreaders'needsratherthanthoseofauthors.Foramedicallibrarianoraninformationist,structuredabstractsareeasiertoreadandfacilitateaquickerassessmentofrelevantclinicalarticlesexpectedbyclinicians.Inlightoftheproposalsnotedinthe“UniformRequirementsforManuscriptsSubmittedtoBiomedicalJournals”[5],morejournalsareexpectedtoadoptstructuredabstracts.However,morethan30%ofarticlesfromthetop30journalsdidnotincludestructuredabstractsinthisstudy.Onepossiblereasonforjournalsnotadoptingstructuredabstractsistraditionalspaceconstraintsforasinglearticle,asnarrativeabstractsgenerallyincreaseinlengthoncemodifiedtoconformtothestructuredformat[1].Anotherreasonmaybethatjournalsarereluctanttoobligateauthorstopresenttheirstudy'sweakpointsbywritingstructuredabstractsAlimitednumberofjournalshadonlystructuredabstracts.Amongthe304articlesthatincludedabstracts,61.8%werestructured.Sixty-sevenpercentofthestructuredabstractsusedtheIMRADformat,whilethe8-headingformatwasnotwidelyused.ResultsoftheclusteranalysisindicatedthattheIMRADformatmainlyincludedtheheadings“method(s),”“results,”and“conclusion.”VariationsoftheIMRADformatalsoincluded“objective(s),aim,orpurpose”;“patients,participants,population,subjects,andmaterial(s)”;and“discussion,recommendation,orinterpretation.”Asfortheformatwith8headings,“results”and“conclusion(s)”weretheonlycategoriesgenerallyused.Threeadditionalcategorieswerealsoidentifiedamongthoseusingvariationsofthe8-headingformat;theseincluded“context,”“patient,”and“mainoutcomemeasures”;“objective(s),”“intervention(s),”and“mainoutcomemeasure(s)”;and“objective(s),”“patients,”and“mainoutcomemeasure(s).”Structuredabstracts,particularlythosewithaneight-headingformat,areassumedtobemoresuitableforinterventionalstudiesthanforobservationalstudies[7].However,whenoursearchwaslimitedto“clinicaltrials”byusingPubMed'spublicationtype,weretrievedonlyafewclinicaltrials.Therefore,wecouldassumethattheeight-headingformat,ifmodifiedappropriately,couldalsobeappliedtoabstractsforobservationalstudyreports.Whentheheadingof“intervention”isnotappliedinacohortstudythataimstoexploretheriskfactorsofacertaindisease,“none”or“notapplied”canbeincluded.However,itmayberatherdifficulttodescribethe“mainoutcomemeasures”inanobservationalstudy,whicharemoreexploratoryinnaturethanhypothesistesting.Furtherdiscussionisneededtoaddressthisissue.Inonlyeightjournalsofthepresentstudydidtheinstructionsforauthorsrecommendtheuseoftheeight-headingformat,and,forthemostpart,abstractformatsconformedtothejournals'