Table 4.

Formatting features of systematic reviews to enhance uptake

Summary	Dissemination of SRs	Layout, presentation, setup
Summary statement [30]	Share material on a website [24, 43]	Graded format with key messages [47]
1-page summaries in plain language [49]	Provide tailored, targeted messages for relevant audiences [24]	Recipe type guidance, the information indicates this, this, and this [52]
Abbreviated format of research evidence, such as an executive summary, would be preferable (1 to 2 pages long ) [43]	Electronic communication channels are generally preferred [43]	Title framed as a question [47]
Expectations of short, clear summary [47]	Newsletters containing summaries of current research developed and directly emailed to managers [43]	Reformatting the text to make it easier to pick out important parts [47]
Boxes placed throughout the summaries [47]		Chart on first page describing what review is about [47]
Summary of findings tables [47]	Reports could be either distributed through professional organisations or through a clearinghouse [43]	A modified academic abstract (relevance and description of review characteristics including the impact, applicability to setting, costs, or other considerations and need for no further evaluation) [47]
1-page summaries with references, so the reader is able to investigate further, and case studies [49]	Active delivery of information (as opposed to access to online registry) [24]	Preference for less dense, more accessible literature [49]
		Wanted a shorter, clearer presentation [47]
		A bullet point evaluation or rating system of study design quality so that for those of us who do not make our living doing that, we do not have to read a half dozen pages to ferret it out [44]
		Develop a more user-friendly “front end” for potentially relevant systematic reviews (e.g. 1 page of take-home messages and a 3-page executive summary) to facilitate rapid assessments of the relevance of a review by health care managers and policy makers and, when the review is deemed highly relevant, more graded entry into the full details of the review [45]
		Well written and concise [47]
		Limiting the number of tables and not letting them break across pages [47]
		Simplifying the text and tables and ensuring that the results in the text matched those in the tables [47]
		Moving partner logos and the summary publication date to the front page [47]