Writing academic abstracts to summarize Research Articles

Research articles (RAs) consist of introductions, methods, results, discussions as well as conclusions sections. These articles are also composed of abstracts, which are formal summaries of the main papers. In order to write abstracts academically, researchers need to meet some requirements.

However, not all the abstracts share the same characteristics. According to Pintos and Crimi (2010), there are four types of abstracts: informative, indicative, unstructured and structured. Each type has its own features that authors need to take into account to write appropriately.

Along this present paper, four abstracts will be analysed and compared. Although these papers belong to the field of medicine, they do not have the same characteristics. Therefore, their structure, classification as well as linguistic characteristics will be compared in order to find out not only similarities but also differences.

The first analysed RA deals with the use of velanfaxine and the risk of sudden cardiac death or near death (Martínez, Assimes, Mines, Dell’Aniello & Suissa, 2010). This is an informative abstract which is heavy on data, looks at the past and describes what the researchers did. For instance, one of the uses of the past tense could be “the use of velanfaxine was not associated with an excess risk of sudden death or near death…” (Martínez et al., 2010, p. 1).

This abstract is structured since it contains bolded headings which identify the main sections of the article. The headings stated by the researchers are named objective, design, setting, participants, results as well as conclusions, and they are summaries of the main sections in the RA.

The objective section states the main purpose of the research and it is placed in order to inform the audience. The design section clarifies what type of study is. The setting section identifies the place where the research took place. The participants section includes all the people who have undergone analysis. The results section describes the main findings and it appears to be as objective as possible. The last section is called conclusions and it aims at interpreting the results of the research.

As regards linguistics features, past tenses together with impersonal passives are used at the most. For instance, Martínez et al. (2010) claimed that “207384 participants were followed-up for an average of 3.3 years” (p. 1). According to Pintos and Crimi (2010), conclusions tend to be written in present. However, this abstract contains a conclusion written in past instead of present in order to refer to this particular research.

The second abstract is similar to the previous paper as regards structure. It deals with non-invasive cardiac stress testing before non-cardiac surgery (Wijeysundera et al., 2010). It is also an informative and structured abstract. However, it contains two more headings named interventions and main outcome measures which add more specific information.

In the objective section, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) stated the main purpose of carrying out this research. They also made reference to the design as well as the setting of the investigation. The participants section consists of all the people included in the research. These researchers also mentioned the interventions they have taken as well as their main outcome measures.

The last two sections of this RA are called results and conclusions. The results section consists of all the findings of the present study. Besides, the conclusions section interprets these results in order to determine the benefits of the research and who the researchers apply to.

Wijeysundera et al. (2010) used past tenses as well as impersonal passives such as “testing was associated with harm in low risk patients” (p. 1). In contrast to the first abstract, the conclusion is written in present and not in past in order to emphasize further applications.

The third abstract refers to the differences in the knowledge of the technological resources in professors (Almerich et al., 2010). It does not seem to resemble the last two abstract formats since it is indicative and does not include specific results. It describes what the researchers intended to do and looks at the future rather than the past. This abstract is unstructured and consists of one long, unbroken paragraph without headings.

As regards linguistic features, this unstructured abstract includes the use of full sentences and the use of impersonal passives, but it is totally written in the present. Apart from this fact, a section called keywords is added below the abstract and it contains the most important words of the RA.

The last abstract to be analysed makes reference to the treatment of hypertension in patients who are 80 years or older (Beckett et al., 2008). It is informative as well as structured. It is informative since it is heavy on data and looks at what has been found along the research, and it is structured because it is divided into four sections: background, methods, results and conclusions.

The background section states the gap between what is already known about the topic in question and what should have to be investigated. The methods section includes how the authors carried out the research. The results section consists of the differences between the active-treatment group and the placebo group. The last section is called conclusions and it interprets the results using hedgings such as “the results provide evidence that...” (Beckett et al., 2008, p. 1).

As the other abstracts do, this summary uses full sentences and impersonal passives such as “fewer serious adverse events were reported in the active-treatment group” (Beckett et al., 2008, p. 1). As for the tense usage, the conclusion is written in present, reflecting further application to other contexts.

The four abstracts belong to the field of medicine and they seem to be concise and objective. Although they do not share the same characteristics, they appear to transmit information appropriately and successfully. According to this preliminary analysis, the four abstracts seem to describe the main texts of the Research Articles in a clear and neat way.



References

Almerich, J., Suárez, J. M., Orellana, N., Belloch, C., Bo, R., & Gastaldo, I. (2005). Diferencias en los conocimientos de los recursos tecnológicos en profesores a partir del género, edad, y tipo de centro. RELIEVE, 11 (2), 127-142. Retrieved from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=5750

Beckett, N. S., Peters, R., Astrid, E. F., Staessen, J.A., Liu, L., Dumitrascu, D., et al. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. The New England Journal of Medicine 358 (18), 1887/1898. Retrieved from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=5754

Martínez, C., Assimes, T.L., Mines, D., Dell’Aniello, S., & Suissa, S. (2010). Use of venlafaxine compared with other antidepressants and the risk of sudden cardiac death or near death: A nested case-control study. BMJ, 340 (c249), 1-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c249

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 4: Research Articles: abstracts. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved from May 22, 2010, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4693

Wijeysundera, D.N., Beattie, W. S., Elliot, R.F., Austin, P. C., Hux, J.E., & Laupacis, A. (2010). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: Population based cohort study. BMJ, 340 (b5526), 1-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5526