reader searching for help in the associates in their article "Quality treatment of present patients. of abstracts of original research articles in CMAJ in 1989" (ibik Jo JoAPi,PD 449-453). However, the result is Department of Internal more pleasing than the impersonal Medicine/Dermatology and uniform mold into which abUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center stracts are being forced. Omaha, Neb. I would have written a tradiReference tional abstract for Namine and associates' article along the follow1. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ et al: ing lines. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 69-76
Abstracts: the need for improvement L ' ike an increasing number of journals, CMAJ now requires structured abstracts, as reiterated by its editor-in-chief, Dr. Bruce P. Squires, in his recent editorial (Can Med Assoc J 1991; 144:421). As a reader I dislike this format because structured abstracts tend to be much longer than traditional abstracts. Traditional abstracts were limited to 150 words, but structured abstracts may be up to 400 words long - nearly half a page. An example is the abstract of the article "Iron deficiency anemia in the elderly: the diagnostic process", by Dr. Christopher Patterson and colleagues (ibid. 435-440). In addition, structured abstracts are full of technical jargon that is difficult to understand for the person who is not a specialist in the field. As an author I dislike this format because it is ugly and removes much room for individual expression. It is difficult and time consuming to produce a well-written, concise abstract containing all the necessary information. Difficult decisions may need to be made as to what information can be left out in order to comply with a length limit; perhaps this is why many of the abstracts published in CMAJ in 1989 lacked the necessary details now required, as reported by L;utchmie Namie and MAY 1, 19
9
To evaluate the quality of abstacts of origina research articles, we conducted a blinded survey of all such articles published in CMAJin 1989. Abstracts were scored from a checklist as to the quality of information provided about study purpose, design, setting, subjects, intervention, variables studied, results and conclusions. Out of a maximum score of 1 the mean score (and standard deviation [SD]) for the 33 abstracts studied was 0.63 (0.13). Most abstracts provided some information pertaining to each of the major categories on the checklist. However, technical terms for study design and method of subject selection were not given in 56% and 79% of the abstracts repetively, 52% did not describe the study variables explicitly, 66% did not give supporting data when reportng esults, 86% did not address study limitations, and 93% made no recommendations for future study. We conclude that abstracts should provide more detail about re ch design, subject selection, results and conclusions. Only a small number of abstracts from one journal were studied, and the contents of the abstracts were not compared with the contents of the articles. Future studies should add these issues and compare the quality of traditional and structured abstracts. Tr a M.S Wilvr 3M, BCI, PhD St. Michaes Hospital Toronto, Ont.
[Dr. Squires responds:] I am inclined to agree with Dr. Woleveres distaste for the structured abstract, at least on esthetic grounds. The structured abstract is ugly. It is also long -doubly so for CMALJ since we publish ab-
stracts in both English and French. But perhaps the 1 50-word traditional abstract was simply too restrictive. I believe that the structured abstract facilitates identification of a study's important components and makes electronic searches of the literature more efficient. Wolever also states that "structured abstracts are full of technical jargon." I presume he means that they contain more technical jargon than do traditional abstracts. I see no. reason why the structured abstract should promote the greater use of jargon. If an abstract - traditional or structured - is jargon-filled, the authors and the editors haven't been doing their job. The proof of the pudding, of course, will come when structured abstracts have been used long enough to enable researchers to compare them with traditional abstracts. BIuce P. Squres, MDs PiD Editor-in-chief and scientific editor
The animal rights war A lthough I have no wish to prolong the debate on animal resch I must respond to the letter (Can Med Assoc J 1991; 144: 281) from Stephanie Brown, president of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, who charges that my article "We cannot afford to lose the animal rights war" (Can Med Assoc J 1990; 142: 1421-1423) is "confrontational" and expresses
"polarizing attitudes." The polarization ocurred long ago, when animal rights extremists resorted to distortion of the truth and blatant lies to achieve their goals, including the denigrtion of medical research using laboratory animals. In the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of AniCAN
MSED ASSOC J I91; 144 (9)
1111
mals, its investigator and other animal rights organizations collectively lost $4.2 million in lawsuits brought for defamation by entertainer Robert Berosini as a result of unsubstantiated cruelty charges (NABR Alert 1990; 12 [4]). Some years ago, in a widely publicized case, two faculty members at the University of Western Ontario were similarly charged, by Life Force, an animal rights organization based in British Columbia; the charges were thrown out of court as frivolous and unsubstantiated (Western News 1985; 21 [25]). Brown herself has contributed to the polarization. In her address to the symposium Bioethics '89 she stated: "Animal-based research involves institutionalized pain and suffering for many, if not all animals involved" (Caring for Animals 1989; 6 [2]). This statement is emotional and totally lacking in supporting evidence. It clearly illustrates why scientists are sceptical of the ability of animal rights activists to bring any objectivity to the debate on this subject. Richard B. Philp, DVM, PhD Professor Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology University of Western Ontario London, Ont.
[Ms. Brown responds.] Dr. Philp disputes my statement "Animal-based research involves institutionalized pain and suffering for many, if not all animals involved." Then he generalizes, tarring all animal protectionists with the same brush, claiming that "scientists are sceptical of the ability of animal rights activists to bring any objectivity to the debate on this subject." After 16 years of visiting Canadian animal laboratories as part of Canadian Council on Animal Care assessments and after years of voluntary service on the coun1112
CAN MED ASSOC J 1991; 144 (9)
cilI and on institutional animal care committees I can, unfortunately, verify animal pain and suffering in Canadian laboratories. Suffering in various degrees is a fact of life (and death) for all laboratory animals. These animals are housed in small cages and suffer environmental deprivation, which is not to be trivialized. Pain, part of a high proportion of experiments, is additional to this basic deprivation. The use of animals for laboratory experiments is a contentious issue. We need resolutions to the problems, not denial of reality or attempts to discredit those who seek solutions. Stephanie Brown President Canadian Federation of Humane Societies 102-30 Concourse Gate Nepean, Ont.
The CMA's Code of Ethics I suggest that there are two
major omissions from the CMA's Code of Ethics. "'Comfort always." As a medical student I remember that phrase being taught to me during our clinical studies at the University of Toronto (class of '47). Those two simple words indicate a policy that every caring physician should follow. Going back almost 50 years I remember the renowned Dr. J.B. Grant. professor of anatomy. telling us as new students that we would live in the upper stratum of society. We would have a higher than average income and would be a highly respected group. However, in return we would owe something to society: to help those less fortunate and in need. We would always have to remember this responsibility. He reminded us that it was a privilege to be
of the mid-1960s we all provided nmuch care for which we received no remuneration, not because people didn't want to pay us but because they didn't have the money. Today with government prepaid insurance we are paid for virtually everything we do. However, I believe that we still owe something to the needy, the handicapped, the homeless, the children of one-parent families, the h ungry. I suggest there be a section added to our Code of Ethics reminding us of this responsibility. William J. Copeman, MD Thorah Beach Road RR I Beaverton, Ont.
North of Siberia, the medical challenges are many [correctioni B _
ecause of a transmission problem that affected this article (Can Med Assoc J 1991; 144: 755, 759), by Dr. Myles Druckman, an incorrect name was used to describe native people living in the northern part of the Soviet Union. The correct name is Nentsy, not Mentsy. We apologize for the error. - Ed.
Clearing the air on malaria [correction] A
the end of the fourth paragraph of this article (Can Med Assoc J 1991; 144: 661-663), by Dr. Robert Wittes, the final sentence should have read, with the corrected portion in italics: "Physicians expecting to see many such patients may apply to the nearest principal investigator, preferably in writing, to be a coinvestigator." We apologize to the author and the readers trained as a doctor. for this error and any confusion it Before the Medical Care Act may have caused. - Ed. For prescribing information see page 1163-
Abstracts: the need for improvement L ' ike an increasing number of journals, CMAJ now requires structured abstracts, as reiterated by its editor-in-chief, Dr. Bruce P. Squires, in his recent editorial (Can Med Assoc J 1991; 144:421). As a reader I dislike this format because structured abstracts tend to be much longer than traditional abstracts. Traditional abstracts were limited to 150 words, but structured abstracts may be up to 400 words long - nearly half a page. An example is the abstract of the article "Iron deficiency anemia in the elderly: the diagnostic process", by Dr. Christopher Patterson and colleagues (ibid. 435-440). In addition, structured abstracts are full of technical jargon that is difficult to understand for the person who is not a specialist in the field. As an author I dislike this format because it is ugly and removes much room for individual expression. It is difficult and time consuming to produce a well-written, concise abstract containing all the necessary information. Difficult decisions may need to be made as to what information can be left out in order to comply with a length limit; perhaps this is why many of the abstracts published in CMAJ in 1989 lacked the necessary details now required, as reported by L;utchmie Namie and MAY 1, 19
9
To evaluate the quality of abstacts of origina research articles, we conducted a blinded survey of all such articles published in CMAJin 1989. Abstracts were scored from a checklist as to the quality of information provided about study purpose, design, setting, subjects, intervention, variables studied, results and conclusions. Out of a maximum score of 1 the mean score (and standard deviation [SD]) for the 33 abstracts studied was 0.63 (0.13). Most abstracts provided some information pertaining to each of the major categories on the checklist. However, technical terms for study design and method of subject selection were not given in 56% and 79% of the abstracts repetively, 52% did not describe the study variables explicitly, 66% did not give supporting data when reportng esults, 86% did not address study limitations, and 93% made no recommendations for future study. We conclude that abstracts should provide more detail about re ch design, subject selection, results and conclusions. Only a small number of abstracts from one journal were studied, and the contents of the abstracts were not compared with the contents of the articles. Future studies should add these issues and compare the quality of traditional and structured abstracts. Tr a M.S Wilvr 3M, BCI, PhD St. Michaes Hospital Toronto, Ont.
[Dr. Squires responds:] I am inclined to agree with Dr. Woleveres distaste for the structured abstract, at least on esthetic grounds. The structured abstract is ugly. It is also long -doubly so for CMALJ since we publish ab-
stracts in both English and French. But perhaps the 1 50-word traditional abstract was simply too restrictive. I believe that the structured abstract facilitates identification of a study's important components and makes electronic searches of the literature more efficient. Wolever also states that "structured abstracts are full of technical jargon." I presume he means that they contain more technical jargon than do traditional abstracts. I see no. reason why the structured abstract should promote the greater use of jargon. If an abstract - traditional or structured - is jargon-filled, the authors and the editors haven't been doing their job. The proof of the pudding, of course, will come when structured abstracts have been used long enough to enable researchers to compare them with traditional abstracts. BIuce P. Squres, MDs PiD Editor-in-chief and scientific editor
The animal rights war A lthough I have no wish to prolong the debate on animal resch I must respond to the letter (Can Med Assoc J 1991; 144: 281) from Stephanie Brown, president of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, who charges that my article "We cannot afford to lose the animal rights war" (Can Med Assoc J 1990; 142: 1421-1423) is "confrontational" and expresses
"polarizing attitudes." The polarization ocurred long ago, when animal rights extremists resorted to distortion of the truth and blatant lies to achieve their goals, including the denigrtion of medical research using laboratory animals. In the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of AniCAN
MSED ASSOC J I91; 144 (9)
1111
mals, its investigator and other animal rights organizations collectively lost $4.2 million in lawsuits brought for defamation by entertainer Robert Berosini as a result of unsubstantiated cruelty charges (NABR Alert 1990; 12 [4]). Some years ago, in a widely publicized case, two faculty members at the University of Western Ontario were similarly charged, by Life Force, an animal rights organization based in British Columbia; the charges were thrown out of court as frivolous and unsubstantiated (Western News 1985; 21 [25]). Brown herself has contributed to the polarization. In her address to the symposium Bioethics '89 she stated: "Animal-based research involves institutionalized pain and suffering for many, if not all animals involved" (Caring for Animals 1989; 6 [2]). This statement is emotional and totally lacking in supporting evidence. It clearly illustrates why scientists are sceptical of the ability of animal rights activists to bring any objectivity to the debate on this subject. Richard B. Philp, DVM, PhD Professor Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology University of Western Ontario London, Ont.
[Ms. Brown responds.] Dr. Philp disputes my statement "Animal-based research involves institutionalized pain and suffering for many, if not all animals involved." Then he generalizes, tarring all animal protectionists with the same brush, claiming that "scientists are sceptical of the ability of animal rights activists to bring any objectivity to the debate on this subject." After 16 years of visiting Canadian animal laboratories as part of Canadian Council on Animal Care assessments and after years of voluntary service on the coun1112
CAN MED ASSOC J 1991; 144 (9)
cilI and on institutional animal care committees I can, unfortunately, verify animal pain and suffering in Canadian laboratories. Suffering in various degrees is a fact of life (and death) for all laboratory animals. These animals are housed in small cages and suffer environmental deprivation, which is not to be trivialized. Pain, part of a high proportion of experiments, is additional to this basic deprivation. The use of animals for laboratory experiments is a contentious issue. We need resolutions to the problems, not denial of reality or attempts to discredit those who seek solutions. Stephanie Brown President Canadian Federation of Humane Societies 102-30 Concourse Gate Nepean, Ont.
The CMA's Code of Ethics I suggest that there are two
major omissions from the CMA's Code of Ethics. "'Comfort always." As a medical student I remember that phrase being taught to me during our clinical studies at the University of Toronto (class of '47). Those two simple words indicate a policy that every caring physician should follow. Going back almost 50 years I remember the renowned Dr. J.B. Grant. professor of anatomy. telling us as new students that we would live in the upper stratum of society. We would have a higher than average income and would be a highly respected group. However, in return we would owe something to society: to help those less fortunate and in need. We would always have to remember this responsibility. He reminded us that it was a privilege to be
of the mid-1960s we all provided nmuch care for which we received no remuneration, not because people didn't want to pay us but because they didn't have the money. Today with government prepaid insurance we are paid for virtually everything we do. However, I believe that we still owe something to the needy, the handicapped, the homeless, the children of one-parent families, the h ungry. I suggest there be a section added to our Code of Ethics reminding us of this responsibility. William J. Copeman, MD Thorah Beach Road RR I Beaverton, Ont.
North of Siberia, the medical challenges are many [correctioni B _
ecause of a transmission problem that affected this article (Can Med Assoc J 1991; 144: 755, 759), by Dr. Myles Druckman, an incorrect name was used to describe native people living in the northern part of the Soviet Union. The correct name is Nentsy, not Mentsy. We apologize for the error. - Ed.
Clearing the air on malaria [correction] A
the end of the fourth paragraph of this article (Can Med Assoc J 1991; 144: 661-663), by Dr. Robert Wittes, the final sentence should have read, with the corrected portion in italics: "Physicians expecting to see many such patients may apply to the nearest principal investigator, preferably in writing, to be a coinvestigator." We apologize to the author and the readers trained as a doctor. for this error and any confusion it Before the Medical Care Act may have caused. - Ed. For prescribing information see page 1163-
