Are Structured Abstracts Easier to Read Than Traditional Ones?

Abstract

Background: Structured abstracts (which contain sub‐headings such as this one) have replaced traditional abstracts in most current medical journals. Evaluation studies have shown that such abstracts usually contain more information, are of a higher quality, and facilitate peer review. Aim: The aim of the studies reported here was to investigate an additional, but as yet unexamined, feature of structured abstracts – namely whether or not they might be easier to read. Method: Eight studies were carried out. The first two compared the Flesch and the Gunning readability scores of traditional abstracts that were published in particular journals with those of structured ones that were published in the same journals after these journals had moved to using structured abstracts. The next two examined the Flesch and the Gunning readability scores of traditional and structured abstracts when they were written by the same authors. The next two examined the ability of readers to re‐construct scrambled versions of abstracts to see if it was easier to re‐construct structured abstracts than it was to re‐construct traditional ones. The last two examined readers’ judgements of the readability of pairs of traditional and structured abstracts. Results: The first two studies showed that there were no significant differences in the readability scores of the earlier and the later abstracts. The next two studies showed, however, that when authors revised traditional abstracts to produce structured versions then the structured abstracts had higher readability scores. The next two studies showed that when readers were asked to re‐sequence sentences taken from traditional and structured abstracts, they sometimes found this harder to do with traditional abstracts. The last two studies showed that readers rated structured abstracts more readable than traditional ones. Conclusions: These studies suggest that structured abstracts may be easier to read than traditional ones – sometimes!

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 58 citations exist upstream.