Readers' Attention of Shorter Versus Longer Abstracts of Systematic Reviews

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.

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.

Eligibility Criteria:
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