How to Write a Systematic Review Abstract Using PRISMA for Abstracts

PRISMA reporting and systematic review publication
write a systematic review abstract using prisma for abstracts, illustrating the decisions documented by Systematic review
By Dr. Esmaeel Saeedy Robat, Founder of MetaSyn Academy · Published meta-analyst (Nature Human Behaviour, 2026) · Evidence checked August 2026

PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts

Writing the abstract is an exercise in evidence selection, not sentence shortening

A systematic review manuscript can explain its methods over hundreds or thousands of words. Its abstract may receive only a few hundred. That difference creates a distinctive methodological communication problem: authors must remove information while preserving the review’s scientific meaning.

The current official framework is PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts, a 12-item checklist published within the PRISMA 2020 reporting package.1 It updates the 2013 PRISMA for Abstracts guideline developed by Beller and colleagues for journal and conference abstracts.2 The checklist specifies the information that should survive compression. It does not prescribe one universal heading structure, one ideal word count or one approved writing style.

That distinction is fundamental. Good abstract writing begins before the first sentence is shortened. Authors need to decide which information is indispensable to understanding the review and which information can safely disappear. If that decision is made badly, the resulting abstract can be fluent, concise and technically accurate sentence by sentence while still misrepresenting the evidence as a whole.

The central methodological problem

A short abstract can lose detail without losing truth. It cannot lose a limitation that changes interpretation, replace an outcome because another result looks more favorable, report the total review population as though all participants contributed to one synthesis, or convert an uncertain conclusion into a confident recommendation.

PRISMA defines the information architecture, not the heading labels

PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts covers the report’s title and objective; eligibility criteria; information sources and search dates; risk-of-bias methods; synthesis methods; included studies and participants; main outcome results; limitations of the evidence; interpretation; funding; and registration.1

Those responsibilities do not automatically translate into twelve visible headings. A journal may require Objective, Design, Data Sources, Eligibility Criteria, Results and Conclusions. Another may use Methods and Findings. An unstructured journal may allow no headings at all.

The correct approach is therefore to treat PRISMA as the content layer and the target journal as the presentation layer. Authors should ask whether the required information is present and findable inside the venue’s permitted structure rather than attempting to force every abstract into an invented “PRISMA format.”

Structured headings can help. In a random sample of 534 systematic reviews, Helbach and colleagues found better PRISMA for Abstracts reporting among structured non-Cochrane abstracts than among unstructured ones.3 But that was an association, not evidence that headings by themselves guarantee completeness. Cochrane reviews in the same study reported more checklist items than non-Cochrane reviews, illustrating that editorial systems, author guidance and reporting discipline matter as well.

A word limit creates a budget, but not every word has equal scientific value

Abstract length creates a genuine completeness–conciseness tension. Helbach et al. found that PRISMA for Abstracts adherence increased as abstract word count increased in their sample of 534 reviews.3 That finding is intuitive: more space allows more of the reporting architecture to remain visible.

More space is not automatically better communication. In 2026, the same research group randomized 5,397 systematic-review authors to receive a short 277-word or long 771-word version of the same review abstract. Trial participation, used as an indicator of reader attention, did not differ significantly. The shorter version was judged more attractive and much more concise, while perceived informativeness and accuracy did not significantly differ.4

Seventy-six percent of respondents preferred a maximum length in the 250–300-word range, and the trial authors recommended that range. This is useful empirical evidence, but it is not a PRISMA rule and it should not be turned into a universal Academy requirement. A journal that permits 350 words gives the author a different reporting environment from one that permits 250. The manuscript should obey the actual venue while protecting the same evidence.

The abstract word-budget suitcase A limited-capacity abstract contains the evidence elements that must survive compression, while redundant background and repeated phrasing are shown outside the protected evidence package. A word limit is a capacity problem, not permission to distort Protect evidence-critical information first; shorten lower-value repetition before removing meaning. SHORTEN FIRST generic background repeated phrasing Finite abstract capacity Evidence-critical content receives protected space MAIN RESULT UNCERTAINTY LIMITATION ESSENTIAL METHOD FUNDING + REGISTRATION INTERPRETATION PROTECT meaning-changing evidence information If space is tight, remove redundancy before removing information that changes interpretation. The abstract word-budget problem Compact mobile display of a finite abstract capacity with protected evidence-critical content and lower-priority material to shorten first. SHORTEN FIRST generic background · repeated phrasing FINITE ABSTRACT CAPACITY MAIN RESULT UNCERTAINTY LIMITATION METHOD FUNDING + REGISTRATION INTERPRETATION PROTECT INFORMATION THAT CHANGES MEANING Compression should remove redundancy before evidence-critical detail.
Figure 1. The word-budget problem. Abstract space is finite, but scientific importance is not evenly distributed. A limitation or uncertainty interval may require fewer words than background context while carrying much greater interpretive value.

Outcome selection must not become result selection

PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts asks authors to report the main outcomes. It does not say that the main outcomes are the statistically significant ones.1

This distinction is supported by empirical evidence on selective reporting. Page and colleagues synthesized studies comparing planned and published systematic-review outcomes. In one included study, 32% of Cochrane reviews did not report all primary outcomes in the abstract. Another study found that statistically significant primary outcomes were more likely to be completely reported in abstracts than non-significant primary outcomes, with a risk ratio of 2.66.5

These studies examined older reviews and cannot be used as a prevalence estimate for abstracts published under PRISMA 2020. Their methodological lesson remains relevant: once results are known, outcome selection can become dependent on the results themselves.

Word limits create the need to select. They have not been established as the sole cause of selective outcome reporting. The safer conclusion is that constrained space creates an opportunity for selective emphasis, while evidence shows that favorable or statistically significant results have historically been more likely to receive complete abstract reporting.

Selective outcome emphasis distorts the abstract Two main outcomes are shown before abstract selection. A favorability-based pathway produces a distorted abstract, whereas a review-question-based pathway preserves the intended evidence representation. Selection by importance is not selection by favorability REVIEW’S MAIN OUTCOMES MAIN OUTCOME A favorable result MAIN OUTCOME B uncertain / unfavorable result SELECTION RULE What determines which outcome is represented? FAVORABILITY FILTER selects whichever result looks best QUESTION / PROTOCOL FILTER preserves the review’s intended priorities DISTORTED favorable evidence only FAITHFUL question remains intact The abstract should represent the review question, not showcase the most favorable result. Selective outcome emphasis Compact mobile comparison between favorability-based outcome selection and question-based outcome selection. MAIN OUTCOME A favorable result MAIN OUTCOME B uncertain / unfavorable result OUTCOME SELECTION What determines what survives? FAVORABILITY FILTER → DISTORTED selection follows which result looks best the evidence story becomes more positive QUESTION / PROTOCOL FILTER → FAITHFUL selection follows intended priorities the review question remains intact Selection is necessary; result-dependent selection is the problem.
Figure 2. Selective emphasis. A constrained abstract requires outcome selection, but the decision should follow the review question and prospective priorities rather than the observed favorability of the results.

“Main outcome” is a reporting decision that should be made before polishing the result

There is no official PRISMA hierarchy specifying exactly how authors must choose among several co-primary outcomes, multiple time points or several outcomes central to the question. A useful operational rule therefore has to be identified as an interpretation rather than disguised as checklist wording.

A defensible sequence is to begin with prospectively identified primary outcomes when the review used them, then ensure that the abstract represents the outcomes needed to answer the review objective fairly. If benefit and harm are both central, both may need space. If omitting an uncertain outcome would make the intervention appear uniformly beneficial when the review does not support that message, the uncertain outcome has interpretive importance even if it is less convenient to summarize.

The goal is not to fit every outcome into the abstract. It is to prevent compression from becoming a mechanism for changing the question after the results are known.

The evidence denominator belongs to the outcome, not to the review title

Systematic-review abstracts often contain several different legitimate counts. Item 7 asks for the total number of included studies and participants. Item 8 asks authors to present the main outcome findings and preferably identify how many studies and participants contributed to each.1

The distinction matters because not all participants contribute to every synthesis. A review can include 4,000 people overall while a particular outcome is informed by only 1,300. If the abstract attaches “4,000 participants” directly to that result, the sentence may exaggerate the amount of evidence supporting it even though 4,000 is a correct number elsewhere in the paper.

A useful abstract therefore treats the quantitative result as a small evidence package: outcome, studies, participants when useful, effect estimate, uncertainty interval and direction. Those elements should be extracted from the same analysis rather than assembled from different parts of the manuscript from memory.

The result passport for an abstract A main outcome result is represented by five connected fields—outcome, studies, participants, estimate and uncertainty—before passing through an abstract checkpoint that verifies magnitude, uncertainty and direction. A quantitative result should travel with its evidence passport Main-outcome result OUTCOME what was measured STUDIES outcome denominator PARTICIPANTS if informative ESTIMATE magnitude + direction UNCERTAINTY CI / credible interval Abstract checkpoint Does the sentence preserve: magnitude uncertainty direction A point estimate detached from uncertainty is an incomplete evidence passport. The result passport for an abstract Compact mobile display of five result fields followed by an abstract checkpoint. MAIN-OUTCOME RESULT OUTCOME what was measured STUDIES outcome denominator PARTICIPANTS outcome-specific participant denominator when informative ESTIMATE magnitude UNCERTAINTY CI / interval KEEP THESE FIELDS TOGETHER ABSTRACT CHECKPOINT Does the sentence preserve magnitude? Does it preserve uncertainty? Is the direction clear? A point estimate without uncertainty is an incomplete passport.
Figure 3. Result passport. The amount of evidence, estimate and uncertainty belong together. Compact reporting is useful only when the compressed sentence still identifies what the result actually represents.

Effect estimates and uncertainty communicate more than significance labels

For a meta-analysis, PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts requires the summary estimate and confidence or credible interval.1 This design discourages one of the least informative forms of quantitative abstract writing: reducing a result to “significant” or “not significant.”

A p-value does not tell the reader how large an effect is, how precise the estimate is, or which clinically important effects remain compatible with the data. “There was no significant difference” does not establish that two interventions are equivalent. An interval that includes substantial benefit and substantial harm communicates a different scientific situation from a narrow interval around a negligible difference, even when both happen to cross a conventional null threshold.

A short abstract therefore needs disciplined numerical language. Report the estimate. Report the interval when required. Make the direction clear. Then calibrate the sentence to what that interval actually permits.

Evidence situation Risky wording More defensible abstract logic
Estimate and interval consistently support meaningful benefit “The treatment was highly successful.” Report the effect estimate and interval, then use proportionate interpretation.
Point estimate favors benefit, but interval includes negligible benefit “The intervention is effective.” Report the favorable estimate together with the uncertainty; avoid definitive efficacy language.
Interval includes important benefit and important harm “No difference was found.” State that the estimate is imprecise or that the evidence does not distinguish important benefit from harm.
Non-significant result with wide interval “The treatments are equivalent.” Report the estimate and interval; do not claim equivalence unless equivalence was formally evaluated.
Sparse harms evidence “The intervention is safe.” State that harms evidence is limited or uncertain when that is what the review found.

The limitation sentence is not optional interpretation insurance

Item 9 asks for a brief summary of limitations of the evidence included in the review.1 The focus is deliberately narrow. The abstract does not need to reproduce the full manuscript’s detailed distinction between limitations of the body of evidence and limitations introduced by the review process. That broader writing task belongs in the full Discussion.

The abstract needs the limitation that prevents the main result from being misunderstood. If most included studies have serious methodological limitations, saying so may change how readers interpret an otherwise favorable pooled estimate. If the confidence interval is extremely wide, that imprecision may deserve the limited space more than another sentence of background.

This creates a practical test: if removing a limitation allows the conclusion to sound materially stronger, the limitation was probably carrying essential interpretive information.

Harms can disappear more easily than benefits

Compression creates a special problem when benefits are easy to summarize but harms are sparse, heterogeneous or less completely reported. Qureshi and colleagues developed a 12-type framework for spin in harms reporting and applied it to a random sample of 100 systematic reviews of interventions. Among the 58 reviews that assessed harms, 28 contained at least one form of harms spin.6

The most important lesson for abstract writing is not the percentage itself. It is that a conclusion such as “the intervention is safe” can be an extrapolation when the underlying review merely failed to detect a statistically significant difference in adverse events or contained too little evidence to establish safety.

If harms are a central part of the review question, deleting them simply because the abstract is crowded can change the balance of the evidence. A faithful abstract does not need to list every adverse event. It does need to avoid presenting an efficacy-only picture when the review’s own safety evidence materially qualifies that picture.

Spin is often produced by emphasis, not fabricated numbers

Spin does not require inventing data. Yavchitz and colleagues identified forms of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses across misleading reporting, interpretation and extrapolation.7 A 2026 systematic review of 133 research-on-research studies found spin to be common in abstracts and main texts across medical research, including systematic reviews, although prevalence varied substantially with design, discipline and the definition of spin used.8

That heterogeneity matters. It would be misleading to treat one pooled percentage as a universal prevalence for every systematic-review field. The stronger finding is qualitative: abstracts are a recurrent location for reporting practices that make results appear more favorable, definitive or clinically actionable than the underlying evidence warrants.

Selective emphasis is especially relevant to compression. Imagine an abstract containing two factually correct sentences: one reports a statistically significant improvement in a secondary outcome, while the other main outcome is omitted because the interval was uncertain. The sentence that remains is true. The abstract as a representation may still be misleading.

The abstract fidelity lock Five aligned rows compare the full report with the abstract for objective, evidence denominator, estimate and uncertainty, important limitation and conclusion boundary. Each row must match before the abstract passes the final fidelity check. Final quality is a fidelity problem FULL REPORT ABSTRACT objective same objective MATCH evidence denominator same denominator MATCH estimate + uncertainty same estimate + uncertainty MATCH important limitation limitation survives MATCH bounded conclusion same evidential boundary MATCH Conciseness passes only after the abstract and full report align on what matters. The abstract fidelity lock Compact mobile display of five full-report-to-abstract fidelity checks. OBJECTIVE Full report ↔ same abstract objective MATCH EVIDENCE DENOMINATOR Full report ↔ same outcome denominator MATCH ESTIMATE + UNCERTAINTY Full report ↔ same estimate and interval MATCH IMPORTANT LIMITATION Full report ↔ limitation survives compression MATCH CONCLUSION BOUNDARY Full report ↔ same evidential strength MATCH The abstract passes only when these five relationships remain aligned.
Figure 4. The fidelity lock. The abstract does not need every detail in the full report, but its question, evidence denominator, quantitative result, important limitation and conclusion should remain aligned.

Abstract/full-text consistency needs its own final audit

Abstracts are not simply smaller copies of full papers, so some difference is expected. The danger is contradiction.

Nascimento and colleagues synthesized 27 overviews covering 5,194 randomized trials and 866 systematic reviews for abstract reporting quality, and 22 overviews covering 2,025 randomized trials and 551 systematic reviews for abstract/full-text consistency. Across healthcare research, reporting remained incomplete and inconsistencies were common, with Results and Conclusions identified as the most inconsistent sections.9

The study combined evidence across randomized trials and systematic reviews, so its findings should not be presented as a systematic-review-only prevalence estimate. It still provides direct support for treating abstract/full-text fidelity as a separate editorial task rather than assuming that a carefully written manuscript automatically produces an accurate abstract.

The final audit should move sideways through the research record. Does the study count in the abstract match the Results? Does the main outcome use the same denominator as the forest plot? Is the confidence interval identical? Does “probably improves” become “improves” after shortening? Did an important risk-of-bias limitation disappear? Did the paper’s restrained implication become a practice recommendation in the abstract?

Numerical consistency and interpretive consistency are equally important. An abstract can contain every correct number and still overstate the review through selective outcome emphasis, certainty language or extrapolation.

Funding and registration have to survive the last round of cuts

Funding and registration are explicit checklist items.1 Their location can vary by journal. A venue may collect registration in the abstract, in a dedicated field or immediately beneath the abstract. The reporting workflow should therefore follow the venue without treating different placement as permission to erase the information.

The 2026 Helbach trial is interesting here because about half of respondents supported including funding and registration information, despite the pressure for shorter abstracts.4 Reader preference is not the reason these items belong in PRISMA, but the finding challenges the assumption that transparency information is necessarily unwanted clutter.

If a review has no registration, accuracy is more important than cosmetic completeness. Do not construct a retrospective identifier or imply prospective registration. Follow the journal’s current instructions and state the situation transparently where appropriate.

The best compression sequence starts from verified evidence

A reliable workflow begins with the stabilized manuscript, not with a blank 300-word box. Extract the main objective, eligibility frame, search sources and dates, appraisal method, synthesis method, total evidence, main outcomes, quantitative results, key evidence limitation, interpretation, funding and registration.

Then decide which main outcomes belong in the abstract without using statistical significance as the selection rule. Map the required PRISMA content into the journal’s headings. Draft the Results with the correct estimate and uncertainty before spending remaining words on stylistic refinement.

Only after the evidence-critical material is present should compression begin. Remove repeated phrases and generic background. Tighten methodological descriptions without changing what was done. Remove adjectives that merely advertise importance. Do not remove an interval, limitation or unfavorable result merely because those elements make the abstract harder to write.

Finally, run two separate checks. The numerical audit asks whether counts and estimates match. The interpretive audit asks whether the abstract tells the same scientific story as the full review.

Compression decision Usually safer to shorten Usually dangerous to remove without checking
Background Generic disease burden, broad statements already implied by the objective. Context required to understand what population or decision the review addresses.
Methods Secondary procedural detail that the checklist or journal does not require in the abstract. Eligibility framework, search source/date, appraisal approach or synthesis method needed by PRISMA.
Results Secondary descriptive detail not needed to answer the review question. Main outcome, correct evidence denominator, effect magnitude, uncertainty and direction.
Discussion Repeated explanation already obvious from the result. The limitation that materially changes interpretation or wording that preserves uncertainty.
Other information Only material the journal explicitly collects elsewhere. Funding or registration simply because they are inconvenient to fit.

The abstract should be revised whenever the evidence underneath it changes

Peer review can change analyses, included-study counts, certainty judgments or interpretation. The abstract should therefore be treated as a dependent representation of the current manuscript, not as a finished object that is written once and left untouched.

A changed estimate requires a new numerical parity check. A changed risk-of-bias judgment may require a different limitation sentence. A revised Discussion may require more restrained interpretation. A newly incorporated study may alter both the total evidence count and the number contributing to a main synthesis.

Version control does not need to become complicated project management. One simple rule is enough: before final submission, know which manuscript version the abstract represents and verify it against that version.

A useful final question

Imagine that a reader sees only the abstract. Would that reader form a materially more favorable, more certain, broader or safer interpretation than a careful reader of the full report? If the answer is yes, the abstract is not merely concise. It has changed the evidence story.

Move from compression principles to the working abstract

Build and verify the abstract Systematic review abstract template and PRISMA checklist

Use the source-of-truth workspace, 12-item content check, live word counter, outcome table and abstract/full-report fidelity audit.

Open the abstract template → See the complete reporting system PRISMA 2020 reporting and systematic review publication

Understand how the abstract fits into the full reporting record rather than treating it as an independent version of the review.

Explore the reporting framework → Continue learning PRISMA reporting and publication guides

Browse academic guidance on transparent reporting, manuscript construction and publication of systematic reviews.

See reporting guides → Use the wider toolkit Free systematic review and meta-analysis templates

Access practical resources across the evidence-synthesis workflow while keeping abstract writing distinct from review conduct.

Browse practical resources →

Frequently asked questions

What is PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts?

PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts is the current 12-item reporting checklist for systematic-review abstracts. It was published as part of PRISMA 2020 and updates the 2013 PRISMA for Abstracts guideline.12

Does PRISMA require a Background heading in the abstract?

No. The checklist includes an objective item but does not impose one universal heading architecture. A journal may require Background, Objective, Findings or other labels. The reporting content should be mapped into the structure the venue requires.

Is 250–300 words the ideal length for every systematic review abstract?

No universal ideal has been established. A 2026 randomized trial found strong respondent preference for a 250–300-word maximum and found a 277-word abstract more attractive and concise than a 771-word version, but the target journal’s actual limit remains decisive.4

Should I report only statistically significant outcomes in the abstract?

No. Main outcomes should be selected because they answer the review question or were prospectively prioritized, not because their p-values are favorable. Earlier meta-research found statistically significant primary outcomes were more likely to receive complete abstract reporting than non-significant ones, illustrating the risk of result-dependent selection.5

What numbers are most important when a meta-analysis is reported?

PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts requires the summary estimate and confidence or credible interval when meta-analysis is performed and asks that direction be clear when groups are compared. Outcome-specific study and participant counts are preferably reported when useful for understanding the evidence base.

Does a non-significant result mean that the treatments are equivalent?

No. A non-significant result does not by itself demonstrate equivalence. The estimate and uncertainty interval determine which benefits, null effects or harms remain compatible with the data.

What limitation belongs in a short abstract?

PRISMA Item 9 asks for limitations of the included evidence. Under severe space constraints, give priority to the limitation that most changes how the main result should be interpreted, such as serious study limitations, inconsistency or imprecision.

Why can an abstract contain spin even when all its numbers are correct?

Spin can arise through selective emphasis, interpretation or extrapolation. An abstract can report correct numbers yet omit an unfavorable main outcome, hide a decisive limitation or state a stronger conclusion than the evidence supports.78

Should funding and registration be removed if the abstract is over the word limit?

They should not simply be deleted. They are Items 11 and 12 of PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts. Some journals display them separately from the counted abstract, so authors should follow the target venue’s current format.

When should I finalize the abstract?

Finalize it after the manuscript’s evidence and interpretation are stable, then rerun the fidelity audit after any material revision that changes study counts, analyses, effect estimates, limitations or conclusions.

Compression is successful only when meaning survives

A strong systematic-review abstract is not the manuscript with most of its words removed. It is a deliberately constructed representation of the review’s evidence. It preserves the question, the essential methodological frame, the amount of evidence, the main result, uncertainty, the limitation that constrains interpretation and the same evidential boundary as the full conclusion.

The final test is therefore fidelity rather than elegance. The abstract may be shorter, cleaner and more readable than the full paper. It should never become more favorable, more certain or more definitive than the research it represents.

Methodological guidance and empirical evidence

  1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  2. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, et al. PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419
  3. Helbach J, Hoffmann F, Pieper D, Allers K. Reporting according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) depends on abstract length. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;154:167-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.12.019
  4. Helbach J, Wandscher K, Pieper D, Hoffmann F. Readers’ attention to shorter versus longer abstracts of systematic reviews: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2026;31(3):170-177. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113613
  5. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, Forbes A. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(10):MR000035. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2
  6. Qureshi R, Naaman K, Quan NG, Mayo-Wilson E, Page MJ, Cornelius V, et al. Development and evaluation of a framework for identifying and addressing spin for harms in systematic reviews of interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177(8):1089-1098. https://doi.org/10.7326/M24-0771
  7. Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Altman DG, Moher D, Hróbjartsson A, Lasserson T, Boutron I. A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:56-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.020
  8. Su N, van der Linden M, van der Heijden G, Listl S, Faggion CM Jr. Moderate to high prevalence of spin revealed in abstracts and main texts of medical publications: a systematic review of research-on-research studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2026;195:112264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112264
  9. Nascimento DP, Ostelo RWJG, van Tulder MW, Gonzalez GZ, Araujo AC, Vanin AA, Costa LOP. Do not make clinical decisions based on abstracts of healthcare research: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;135:136-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.030
  10. Nagendrababu V, Gopinath VK, Tzanetakis GN, Suresh A, Narasimhan S, Faggion CM Jr, et al. A cross-sectional study appraising the reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analyses on traumatic dental injuries using the PRISMA for Abstract checklist. Dent Traumatol. 2025;41(5):601-608. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.13047

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *