Current findings from research on structured abstracts: an update.

Ten years ago, I published a paper with virtually the same title as the one above in which I reviewed the findings of over thirty studies on structured abstracts 1. Here, I comment on developments in the research since that time and the use of structured abstracts over the last ten years. The phrase “structured abstracts” has now become commonplace, and there is now no real need to define what is meant by the term. Such abstracts typically contain subheadings and sections, such as “Background,” “Aim(s),” “Method(s),” “Results,” and “Conclusions.” Occasionally, there are more subheadings—such as “Sample” and “Limitations”—and occasionally there are fewer. Beller et al. provide useful descriptions of what might be included under each main heading 2. Structured abstracts were introduced in medical journals in the mid-1980s 1, 2, and since then, their growth has been phenomenal, and they can now be found in several science and social science journals as well as medical ones. Furthermore, conference abstracts are now often submitted, distributed, and published in a structured form. In my 2004 paper 1, I summarised the published findings as I found them at that time. I reported that, compared with traditional ones, structured abstracts: ▪ were longer, ▪ contained more information, ▪ were easier to read, ▪ were easier to search, ▪ facilitated peer review for conference submissions, and ▪ were generally welcomed by readers and authors. However, I went on to point out that there were limitations to the research carried out up to that time. The two most important of these were that many of the studies: ▪ used abstracts that were written or revised by the investigators to form structured and traditional versions (and could thus have an inherent bias), and ▪ employed undergraduates as judges of the clarity of traditional and structured abstracts (rather than full-time academics and researchers). Today, because so many more structured abstracts are available, it is now possible to make more refined comparisons. And this is what is done in this comment and opinion piece.