***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: To determine the accuracy of the bibliographic citations in theJournal of Anesthesia , all references appearing the years 1987 ( Vol . 1;n=548 ) and 1994 ( Vol . 8;n=1839 ) were sequentially numbered and 100 references from each year were r and omly selected . After citations of non-journal articles were excluded ( n=8 in 1987;n=7 in 1994 ) , the remaining 185 citations were scrutinized . The authors ' names , article title , journal title , volume number , page numbers , and year  were examined for each reference . A reference was deemed correct if each clement of the citation was identical to its source . Of the references examined , 41 % and 42 % in 1987 and 1994 , respectively , contained one or more errors . The elements that were inaccurate most often were , in descending order of frequency , article title , author , and page number . No significant differences existed in the error rate between the two years . We have demonstrated a considerable level of citation error in the reference lists of theJournal of Anesthesia articles , and no improvement over the last seven years . We recommend that contributors to theJournal of Anesthesia should carefully check the accuracy of their reference listings Consent forms in research are a source of current and retrospective information for the subject , a " prompt " for the person who is obtaining consent , and a documentation of the " informed " consent process and its adequacy . Occasionally , these forms may be administered by inexperienced trainees or ancillary personnel , and thus st and virtually alone . Therefore , the forms must be inherently comprehensible to the subjects . To test whether this is the case , 65 new applications were r and omly selected from 13 consecutive IRB agendas , and their consent documents were computer-analyzed ( Flesch/Fry scoring ) after correction for expected confounding features , such as lists , tables , and polysyllabic proper names and jargon . Mean U.S. school grade for 70 % comprehension ( Fry score ) was 15.03 + /- 0.19 ( st and ard error of the mean ) , implying readability by 37.4 + /- 1 % of the U.S. adult population . In contrast , a consecutive sampling of 21 Ann L and ers columns yielded a mean Fry score of 7.67 + /- 0.5 ( p < 0.01 ; readable by 75 + /- 3 % ) . Fifteen Reader 's Digest articles yielded a mean Fry score of 9.95 + /- 0.65 ( p < 0.01 ; readable by 59.1 + /- 3 % ) , and 15 " Talk of the Town " columns from The New Yorker averaged a grade level of 13.3 + /- 0.83 ; p < 0.01 ; readable by 42.7 % + /- 4.8 % ) . No document was improved by more than one grade level by the IRB review process , and most were unchanged . ( ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS To determine the accuracy of bibliographic citation in Acta Anaesthesiologica Sc and inavica . We review ed all 1990 volumes and part of 1994 volumes of the journal and sequentially numbered all references appearing in those years ( n = 2701 and 2158 in 1990 ( No. 1‐No . 8) and 1994 ( No. 1‐No . 5 ) , respectively ) . We r and omly selected 100 references from each year . After citations of nonjournal articles were excluded , the remaining 195 citations were carefully scrutinized . Authors ' names , article title , journal title , volume number , page numbers , and year w7ere examined in each selected reference . A reference was deemed correct if each element of the citation was identical to its source . Of the examined references , 40 % and 45 % contained one or more errors in 1 990 and 1994 , respectively . The elements most likely to be inaccurate were , in descending order of frequency , article title , author , and page number . No significant differences existed in the error rate between the two years . We have found many citation errors in the reference lists of Acta Anaesthesiologica Sc and inavica and no improvement in these latest four years . All contributors to Acta Anaesthesiologica Sc and inavica should thoroughly check the accuracy of reference lists OBJECTIVE To assess and compare the quality of nonstructured and structured abstract s  of original research articles in three medical journals . DESIGN Blind , criterion-based observational study . SAMPLE R and om sample of 300 abstract s ( 25 abstract s per journal each year ) of articles published in the British Medical Journal ( BMJ ) , the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) in 1988 and 1989 ( nonstructured abstract s )  and in 1991 and 1992  ( structured abstract s ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The quality of abstract s  was measured against 33 objective criteria , which were divided into eight categories ( purpose , research design , setting , subjects , intervention , measurement of variables , results and conclusions ) . The quality score was determined by dividing the number of criteria present by the number applicable ; the score varied from 0 to 1 . RESULTS The overall mean quality scores for nonstructured and structured abstract s were 0.57 and 0.74 respectively ( p < 0.001 ) . The frequency in meeting the specific criteria was generally higher for the structured abstract s than for the nonstructured ones . The mean quality score was higher for nonstructured abstract s in JAMA than for those in BMJ ( 0.60 v. 0.54 , p < 0.05 ) . The scores for structured abstract s  did not differ significantly between the three journals . CONCLUSIONS The findings support recommendations that promote the use of structured abstract s. Further studies should be performed to assess the effect of time on the quality of abstract s and the extent to which abstract s reflect the content of the articles CONTEXT The section of a research article most likely to be read is the abstract , and therefore it is particularly important that the abstract reflect the article faithfully . OBJECTIVE To assess abstract s accompanying research articles published in 6 medical journals with respect to whether data in the abstract could be verified in the article itself . DESIGN Analysis of simple r and om sample s of 44 articles and their accompanying abstract s published during 1 year(July 1 , 1996-June 30 , 1997 ) in each of 5 major general medical journals ( Annals of Internal Medicine , BMJ , JAMA , Lancet , and New Engl and Journal of Medicine ) and a consecutive sample of 44 articles published during 15 months ( July 1 , 1996-August 15 , 1997 ) in the CMAJ . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Abstract s were considered deficient if they contained data that were either inconsistent with corresponding data in the article 's body ( including tables and figures ) or not found in the body at all . RESULTS The proportion of deficient abstract s varied widely ( 18%-68 % ) and to a statistically significant degree ( P<.001 ) among the 6 journals studied . CONCLUSIONS Data in the abstract that are inconsistent with or absent from the article 's body are common , even in large-circulation general medical journals ABSTRACT Background : We compared the quality of structured abstract s of original research articles from the British Medical Journal ( BMJ ) , Canadian Medical Association Journal ( CMAJ ) , and the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) from 1991 to 1992 and 2001 to 2002 and between journals . Methods : A r and om , stratified sample of 54 abstract s from 2001 to 2002 in BMJ , CMAJ , and JAMA was compiled and coded . Two blinded raters review ed 27 abstract s each against 33 objective criteria , separated into eight categories ( purpose , research design , setting , subjects , intervention , measurement of variables , results , and conclusion ) . The quality score was the proportion of criteria present ( range = 0–1 ) . Results : The overall mean quality score ( 0.74 ) for 2001–2002 was significantly higher than the 1988–1989 unstructured abstract s ( mean = 0.57 ; p < 0.001 ) but not different from the 1991–1992 structured abstract s ( mean = 0.74 ; p > 0.05 ) . In 2001–2002 , abstract s of CMAJ and JAMA ( both means = 0.76 ) improved significantly over 1991–1992 ( p < 0.05 ) and scored significantly higher than BMJ ( mean = 0.71 ; d.f . = 16 , p < 0.05 ) . Some individual criteria scores ( intervention , statistical information ) improved but information was found consistently under-represented in areas that imply shortcomings of the studies . Interpretation : We found a consistency in abstract quality regardless of the precise format used by different journals . This indicates that the framework for research articles already in place should be maintained and further modification of the framework may not necessarily improve the abstract quality Publication of medical research has high stakes : the communication and legitimization of medical research , the advancement of authors ' careers , priorities in funding decisions , the direction of future research , and the visibility and prestige of journals themselves . Peer review and editing play central roles in the publication process , affecting the acceptance of a manuscript and the form in which it appears . The most commonly heard justification of peer review is that it is an indispensable aid to an editor in assessing the importance of a scientific question and in assessing how well that question has been answered [ 1 , 2 ] . However , it has also been criticized as being inherently conservative , censorial , and , perhaps worst of all , arbitrary [ 3 ] . A frequently heard charge is that peer review delays the dissemination of crucial medical information without commensurate benefit [ 4 - 7 ] . During the last several years , some medical journal editors decided that the value of peer- review and editing practice s should be examined with the same rigor dem and ed for testing medical hypotheses [ 8 , 9 ] . The First International Congress on Peer Review was organized in 1989 [ 10 ] , bringing together medical journal editors and other interested scholars to present and discuss research on peer review ; a second Congress was held in 1993 . The peer- review process has two components : the assessment s by external review ers and the decisions and actions taken by editors , which are partially affected by comments from the review ers . To our knowledge , no study has evaluated the effects of  peer review and editing  on manuscript quality once the decision to accept has been made , and a computerized search of Index Medicus back to 1966 failed to locate any such studies . In this paper , we present the results of such a study , assessing the change in a manuscript between the times of provisional acceptance and final publication . We studied whether the quality of accepted manuscripts was improved by peer- review and editorial processes and , if it was , which aspects were most improved . Methods Setting The study was conducted at the editorial offices of Annals of Internal Medicine . Annals , a specialty journal in internal medicine , is published twice monthly and has a circulation of approximately 100 000 . Annals receives approximately 2400 manuscripts annually , of which half are reports of original research . During the period of this study , the investigators included the editors of Annals ( RHF and SWF ) and a statistical associate editor ( SNG ) . The Review Process No change was noted in the usual review and editing procedures at Annals during the time of this study . All manuscripts received at Annals were initially review ed by one of two full-time editors or one of two half-time deputy editors , as well as by one of seven associate editors , all of whom are faculty members of medical schools in Philadelphia and have subspecialty interests ( for example , infectious disease , gastroenterology ) . Half of the su bmi ssions were returned to authors without further review and half were sent to at least 2 outside review ers , selected by the associate editor from a data base of about 7000 review ers . After comments from the review ers were received , the original editor and associate editor reassessed each manuscript and chose which ones would be discussed at a weekly editorial conference of editors , deputy editors , medical associate editors , and two statistical associate editors . Factors that affected acceptance decisions included the quality of the research , the importance of the question , the contribution of the finding to its field , the utility and interest for Annals readers , the quality of the presentation , the priority relative to other articles , and available space . Authors were notified either that the editors would not accept the paper , that the editors were willing to reconsider the paper after major revisions , or that the paper was provisionally accepted , pending satisfactory revision . Approximately one third of the articles evaluated by outside review ers were accepted , 15 % of su bmi tted original research articles . Papers to be considered further were sent to authors , along with the comments of the two outside review ers , comments of one of the statistical editors , and a letter from one of the editors or deputy editors ( which summarized the discussion at the weekly conference , the ideas of the associate editor , and suggestions from the editor ) . In addition , each manuscript was review ed by a production editor , and directions for changes in manuscript wording or layout of figures and tables were included . All revised manuscripts were review ed by the editor or deputy editor in charge of the manuscript , the appropriate associate editor , the statistical editor , and the production editor . Some revised manuscripts were also reassessed by the original outside review ers . Approximately half of the revised manuscripts were returned to authors for further revision . Most revised manuscripts ( > 95 % ) were ultimately published . The time taken by this process was approximately 2 weeks for the initial decision to review or reject , 8 additional weeks to review and make an acceptance decision , 8 weeks until final acceptance , and about 4 months until publication . More than 95 % of manuscripts su bmi tted to Annals had a provisional acceptance or rejection decision sent to the authors within 3 months . The average time from su bmi ssion to publication was about 7 months , with initial peer 
    Output:
    
More intensive editorial processes were associated with fewer errors in abstract s and references .
Structuring generally improved the quality of abstract s , but increased their length .
Surprisingly few studies have evaluated the effects of technical editing rigorously .
However there is some evidence that the ' package ' of technical editing used by biomedical journals does improve papers .
A substantial number of references in biomedical articles are cited or quoted inaccurately