Structured abstracts contain more information, are of higher quality, and are easier to search and read than are traditional abstracts. However, there is a bewildering variety of ways in which structured abstracts can be printed and little is known about how the typography of structured abstracts can affect their clarity. The aim of this article is to delineate some of these major typographic variables and to comment on their effects upon the layouts of structured abstracts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HartleyJ. and BenjaminM., An Evaluation of Structured Abstracts in Journals Published by the British Psychological Society, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68: 3, pp. 443–456, 1998.
2.
TaddioA.PainT.FassosF. F.BoonH.IlevsichA. L., and EinarsonT. R., Quality of Nonstructured and Structured abstracts of Original Research Articles in the British Medical Journal, The Canadian medical Association Journal, and the Journal of the American Medical Association, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 150: 10, pp. 1611–1615, 1994.
3.
TrakasK.AddisA.KrukD.BuczekY.IskedjanM., and EinarsonT. R., Quality Assessment of Pharmacoeconomic Abstracts of Original Research Articles in Selected Journals, Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 31: 4, pp. 423–438, 1997.
4.
HarbourtA. M.KnechtL. S., and HumphreysB. L., Structured Abstracts in MEDLINE, 1989–91, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 83: 2, pp. 190–195, 1995.
5.
HaynesR. B., More Informative Abstracts: Current Status and Evaluation, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46: 7, pp. 595–597, 1993.
6.
HartleyJ. and SydesM., Are Structured Abstracts Easier to Read than Traditional Ones?Journal of Research in Reading, 20: 2, pp. 22–136, 1997.
7.
HartleyJ.SydesM., and BlurtonA., Obtaining Information Accurately and Quickly: Are Structured Abstracts More Efficient?Journal of Information Science, 22: 5, pp. 249–356, 1996.
8.
BoothA. and O'RourkeA. J., The Value of Structured Abstracts in Information Retrieval from MEDLINE, Health Library Review, 14, pp. 157–160, 1997.
9.
HaynesR. B.MulrowC. D.HuthE. J.AlkmanD. G., and GardnerM. J., More Informative Abstracts Revisited, Annals of Internal Medicine, 113: 1, pp. 69–76, 1990.
10.
McIntoshN.DucG., and SedinG., Structure Improves Content and Peer Review of Abstracts Submitted to Scientific Meetings, European Science Editing, 25: 2, pp. 43–47, 1999.
11.
FroomP. and FroomJ., Deficiencies in Structured Medical Abstracts, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46: 7, pp. 591–594, 1993.
12.
PitkinR. M.BranaganM. A., and BurmeisterL. F., Accuracy of Data in Abstracts in Published Research Articles, Journal of the American Medical Association, 281: 12, pp. 1110–1111, 1999.
13.
HartleyJ., Are Structured Abstracts More/Less Accurate than Traditional Ones? A Study in the Psychological Literature, Journal of Information Science, 26: 4, pp. 273–277, 2000.
14.
HartleyJ. and SydesM., Which Layout Do You Prefer? An Analysis of Readers' Preferences for Different Typographic Layouts of Structured Abstracts, Journal of Information Science, 22: 1, pp. 27–37, 1996.
15.
HartleyJ., Designing Instructional Text (3rd Edition), Nichols, East Brunswick, New Jersey, 1994.
16.
MisanchukE. R., Preparing Instructional Text, Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1992.
17.
HartleyJ., Three Ways to Improve the Clarity of Journal Abstracts, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64: 2, pp. 331–343, 1994.
18.
HartleyJ., Applying Ergonomics to Applied Ergonomics: Using Structured Abstracts, Applied Ergonomics, 30, pp. 535–541, 1999.
19.
HartleyJ., Return to Sender, Why Written Communications Fail, The Psychologist, 11: 10, pp. 477–480, 1998.
20.
HartleyJ.HoweM. J. A., and McKeachieW. J., Writing Through Time: Longitudinal Studies of the Effects of New Technology on Writing, British Journal of Educational Technology, 2001 (2000).
21.
HartleyJ. and GanierF., Which Do You Prefer? Some Observations on Preference Measures in Studies of Structured Abstracts, European Science Editing, 26: 1, pp. 4–7, 2000.
22.
HartleyJ., Could This Be Easier to Read? Tools for Evaluating Text, in HartleyJ. and BranthwaiteA. (eds.), The Applied Psychologist (2nd edition), Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 113–125, 2000.
23.
HartleyJ., The Role of Printouts in Editing Text, British Journal of Educational Technology, 29: 3, pp. 277–282, 1999.
24.
HartleyJ., What Does It Say? Text Design, Medical Information and Older Readers, In ParkD. C.. (eds.), Processing of Medical Information in Ageing Patients, Erlbaum: Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 233–248, 1999.
25.
HartleyJ., Return to Sender! Why Written Communications Fail, The Psychologist, 11: 10, pp. 477–480, 1998.
26.
HartleyJ., Applying Psychology to Text Design: A Case History, International Forum for Information and Documentation, 22: 1, pp. 3–10, 1997.
27.
SydesM. and HartleyJ., A Thorn in the Flesch: Observations on the Unreliability of Computer-Based Readability Formulae, British Journal of Educational Technology, 28: 2, pp. 143–145, 1997.
28.
HartleyJ., Designing Instructional Text for Older Readers: A Review, British Journal of Educational Technology, 25: 3, pp. 172–188, 1994.
29.
HartleyJ., Designing Instructional Text, Nichols, East Brunswick, New Jersey, 1994.
