ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2012
Quality and readability of information materials for people with brain tumours and their families.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nationwide evaluation of readability, quality, and cultural sensitivity of online brain cancer education materials in the United States.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation of the Clear Communication Index to Brazilian Portuguese.Revista de saude publica · 2020Article
- Quality, Readability, and Understandability of German Booklets Addressing Melanoma Patients.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
- Exploring the Most Visible German Websites on Melanoma Immunotherapy: A Web-Based Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2018Article
- Readability of Invasive Procedure Consent Forms.Clinical and translational science · 2015Article
- Screening for Psychological Distress in Adult Primary Brain Tumor Patients and Caregivers: Considerations for Cancer Care Coordination.Frontiers in oncology · 2015Review
- Systematic review of interventions to improve the provision of information for adults with primary brain tumors and their caregivers.Frontiers in oncology · 2015Review
- An evaluation of healthcare information on the Internet: the case of colorectal cancer prevention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Written information is commonly used to inform patients about their disease and treatment but must be evidence-based and understandable to be useful. This study assessed the quality of the content and the readability of information brochures for people affected by brain tumours. We randomly selected 18 publicly available brochures. Brochures were assessed by criteria to assess the quality of content using the DISCERN instrument. Readability was tested using three commonly used formulas, which yield the reading grade level required to comprehend the brochure (sixth grade level recommended). The mean overall DISCERN score was 3.17 out of a maximum of 5 (moderate quality); only one achieved a rating greater than 4 (high quality). Only one brochure met the sixth grade readability criteria. Although brochures may have accurate content, few satisfied all of the recommended criteria to evaluate their content. Existing brochures need to be critically reviewed and simplified and consumer-focused brochures, produced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22918795What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.