Readers' Attention of Shorter Versus Longer Abstracts of Systematic Reviews

Readers' Attention of Shorter Versus Longer Abstracts of Systematic Reviews: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The present randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to investigate the perceptions of researchers on systematic review (SR) abstracts. The primary objective will be to compare readers' attention of shorter versus longer abstracts. The secondary objective will be to assess the perception of an abstract based on four indicators of a well-written abstract: (a) Informativeness, (b) Accuracy, (c) Attractiveness, and (d) Conciseness.

The study will involve researchers from all over the world who recently published an SR, regardless of their research field. To identify eligible authors, a search of MEDLINE (via PubMed) was conducted on May 5, 2024, for systematic reviews published between January 1, 2024, and March 26, 2024. A total of at least 6200 SRs will be selected from PubMed and assessed for eligibility. The corresponding author information will be extracted from all included SRs and randomized in a 1:1 ratio.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Researchers Attention
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Long Abstract; Other: Short Abstract

Detailed Description

This study will attempt to emulate the reading process observed in PubMed. When searching PubMed, researchers are initially presented with an overview of the references identified. After clicking on the title, the corresponding abstract appears. For full-text access, researchers must actively follow a separate link to the journal page.

In this RCT, participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to two groups (those receiving a long abstract vs. those receiving a short abstract). Both groups receive the same cover letter by e-mail explaining the purpose of the study, the use of the data, measures to ensure anonymity of participation, and a link for participation.

The link will direct participants to SoSci Survey, an online survey tool. Those in the group receiving the long abstract will see an abstract with a length of 771 words (PMID: 37955353). Those in the group receiving the short abstract will see an abstract with a length of 277 words (PMID: 37942649). Both abstracts are structured and pertain to the same review entitled "Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones". This review was published once in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and once in the journal BJU International.

The design of the abstract presented is similar to that of PubMed, but no title or authors will be indicated. After reading the abstract, participants must actively click the "Continue" button to proceed with the survey.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 1941
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Germany
  • Oldenburg, Germany
    • Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Child; Adult; Older Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

The corresponding authors of systematic reviews that were indexed in PubMed between January 1, 2024, and March 26, 2024, and for which an English abstract is available will be included. These include authors of all types of SR, with the majority likely representing SRs on effectiveness. Authors of other types of evidence syntheses (e.g. scoping reviews, methodological papers), editorials, protocols, corrections, retractions, erratums, or summaries of SRs will be excluded.

For identifying the systematic reviews from which the corresponding authors will be contacted we will use the following eligibility criteria.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Systematic reviews of all types

Exclusion Criteria:

• No English abstract
• Other types of evidence syntheses (e.g. scoping reviews, methodological papers)
• Protocols
• Editorials
• Others: e.g. Corrections, retractions, erratums, or summaries of SRs
• No email address available

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Other
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Long Abstract; Abstract length: 771 words	Other: Long Abstract; The intervention and control group will be provided with a structured abstract of the review by Soderberg et al., entitled "Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones". This review was published once in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and once in the journal BJU International. The length of the abstract differs significantly depending on the journal. The participants assigned to this study arm will be presented with the longer version published in the Cochrane Database, comprising 771 words (PMID: 37955353).
Active Comparator: Short Abstract; Abstract length: 277 words	Other: Short Abstract; The participants assigned to this study arm will be presented with the shorter version published in BJU International, comprising 277 words (PMID: 37942649).

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Trial participation	The primary outcome of this RCT will be the trial participation, which is defined as the proportion of participants who read the abstract and then clicked on the "Continue" button. This will be quantified by dividing the number of participants who read the abstract and proceeded to complete the survey by the total number of individuals who clicked on the link in the email. Information will be electronically captured in SoSci survey.	Immediately after reading the abstract

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Indicators of a well-written abstract	The secondary outcomes will be four indicators of a well-written abstract, as follows: Informativeness; Accuracy; Attractiveness; Conciseness. The extent to which participants perceive these criteria to be fulfilled will be quantified on a 4-point Likert scale, e.g. very little informative, little informative, informative, very informative. For data analysis, the data will be dichotomized. For instance, the statements "very little informative" and "little informative" will be summarized in the category "non-informative," while the statements "informative" and "very informative" will be summarized in the category "informative."	Immediately after reading the abstract

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Time needed to read the abstract	The time needed to read the abstract will be quantified. The time interval is defined as the period between the participant clicking on the link in the email and clicking on the "Continue" button to proceed to the survey. This time will be automatically recorded by SoSci Survey.	Immediately after reading the abstract

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Oldenburg

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, Ghasemi A. The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Abstract and Keywords. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jan 28;18(1):e100159. doi: 10.5812/ijem.100159. eCollection 2020 Jan.
• Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jan 10;18(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4.
• Soderberg L, Ergun O, Ding M, Parker R, Borofsky MS, Pais V, Dahm P. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 13;11(11):CD013445. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013445.pub2.
• Soderberg L, Ergun O, Ding M, Parker R, Borofsky M, Pais V, Dahm P. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones: a Cochrane Review. BJU Int. 2024 Feb;133(2):132-140. doi: 10.1111/bju.16220. Epub 2023 Nov 29.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): August 1, 2024
• Primary Completion (Actual): September 30, 2024
• Study Completion (Actual): September 30, 2024

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: July 18, 2024
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: July 24, 2024
• First Posted (Actual): July 29, 2024

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Estimated): November 8, 2024
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: November 7, 2024
• Last Verified: November 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Other Study ID Numbers: UO_Abstracts_2024

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No