Lancet Abstract

---
name: lancet-abstract
description: Use to write The Lancet's structured abstract — ≤300 words under the exact headings Background, Methods, Findings, Interpretation, Funding — leading with the clinical question, reporting the primary outcome with effect size and 95% CI, citing the registration number, and naming the funder.
---

# Structured Abstract (lancet-abstract)

## When to trigger

- The design, reporting, and statistics are settled (do this late).
- The abstract is unstructured prose, over 300 words, or uses the wrong headings.
- The abstract uses "Results" and "Conclusions" — The Lancet uses **Findings** and **Interpretation**.
- The registration number or funder is missing from the abstract.

## The Lancet's five mandatory headings

The Lancet uses a structured abstract of **≤300 words** (confirm the exact cap in the current author guidelines) under these specific headings — and the wording of two of them is distinctive:

1. **Background** — the clinical/public-health problem and the specific question. One or two sentences.
2. **Methods** — design, setting (and countries, for multi-country trials), participants and eligibility, intervention/exposure and comparator, primary outcome, analysis population (ITT), and the **trial registration number** (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov NCTxxxxxxxx; ISRCTN).
3. **Findings** *(not "Results")* — recruitment dates and numbers analysed; the **primary outcome with effect size and 95% CI** (absolute and relative where relevant); key secondary outcomes; principal harms/adverse events.
4. **Interpretation** *(not "Conclusions")* — what the findings mean for practice or policy, calibrated to the design; the single most important takeaway. No "more research is needed" as the whole message.
5. **Funding** — name the **funder(s)** (and "none" if unfunded). The Lancet requires the funding source in the abstract.

## Concrete template

```
Background  [The clinical/public-health problem and the specific question this study answers.]

Methods  We did a [design: e.g., multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled
trial] in [n] centres in [countries]. [Eligible participants were ...]. We randomly assigned
participants ([ratio]) to [intervention] or [comparator] [stratified by ...]. The primary
outcome was [outcome] in the [intention-to-treat] population. This trial is registered with
[registry], [number].

Findings  Between [date] and [date], we [screened/enrolled n and] assigned [n] participants
([n] to intervention, [n] to comparator). [Primary outcome] occurred in [n/N (%)] versus
[n/N (%)] (absolute difference [x%, 95% CI a–b]; [relative measure e.g. HR/RR/OR x.x,
95% CI a–b]; p=[exact]). [Key secondary outcome.] [Principal harms: serious adverse events
in n (%) vs n (%).]

Interpretation  [What this means for practice or policy, calibrated to the design — the
single most important, globally relevant takeaway.]

Funding  [Funder name(s); or "None".]
```

## Hard constraints

- [ ] ≤ ~300 words (confirm current cap; treat 300 as the ceiling).
- [ ] Exact headings: **Background, Methods, Findings, Interpretation, Funding** — "Findings" not "Results", "Interpretation" not "Conclusions".
- [ ] **Registration number** present (in Methods).
- [ ] Primary outcome reported with **effect size + 95% CI** (absolute and relative where applicable), not P alone.
- [ ] **Funder named** (or "None").
- [ ] Numbers in the abstract match the flow diagram and Table 1.

## Output format

```
【Headings correct?】 Background / Methods / Findings / Interpretation / Funding — exact? yes/no
【Word count】 N ≤ 300
【Registration number in Methods?】 yes/no
【Primary outcome with effect size + 95% CI?】 yes/no + the numbers
【Funder named?】 yes/no
【Findings/abstract numbers reconcile with flow diagram + Table 1?】 yes/no
【Drafted abstract】 the five-section abstract, filled
【Next】 lancet-writing
```

## Anti-patterns

- **Do not** label the sections "Results" / "Conclusions" — use Findings / Interpretation.
- **Do not** omit the registration number or the funder.
- **Do not** report only a relative effect (HR/OR/RR) when an absolute effect is informative.
- **Do not** end Interpretation on "further research is needed" as the sole message — state the practice/policy implication.