SynthesisRevista de saude publica2015
Readability of medicinal package leaflets: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Revista de saude publica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of factors associated with side-effect expectations from medical interventions.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Pooled it
- Integrating Medication Leaflets Utilizing FHIR and an LLM-Based Question-Answer Pipeline in a Mobile Application.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of clinical quality and readability of neuropathic pain patient information leaflets: Türkiye versus the United States.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- A User-Centric Comprehension Assessment of Prescription Drug Package Inserts in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- The major risk factor of stroke across Indonesia; a nationwide geospatial analysis of universal health coverage program.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Assessing Readability and Usability of Electronic Medicine Package Leaflets in South Korea: A Mixed-Methods Study.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2025Article
- Medication literacy and its social contextuality.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Medicine Information Leaflets for Omeprazole, Safety Knowledge, and Perceptions of Taking the Medication in Thailand.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Article
- Internet Information on Oral Cancer Drugs: a Critical Comparison between Website Providers.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022Article
- Article
- Regulation of Drug Prescribing Information in Latin America and the Caribbean.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2022Review
- Replacing vaccine paper package inserts: a multi-country questionnaire study on the acceptability of an electronic replacement in different target groups.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Outcomes and Critical Factors for Successful Implementation of Organizational Health Literacy Interventions: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The use of the Gunning Fog Index to evaluate the readability of Polish and English drug leaflets in the context of Health Literacy challenges in Medical Linguistics: An exploratory study.Cardiology journal · 2021Article
- Survey of healthcare professionals' practices, expectations, and attitudes towards provision of patient information leaflets in Thailand.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2020Article
- Knowledge translation strategies for dissemination with a focus on healthcare recipients: an overview of systematic reviews.Implementation science : IS · 2020Review
- Implementation and Long-Term Outcomes of Organisational Health Literacy Interventions in Ireland and The Netherlands: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Readability of written medicine information materials in Arabic language: expert and consumer evaluation.BMC health services research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To review studies on the readability of package leaflets of medicinal products for human use. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature review between 2008 and 2013 using the keywords "Readability and Package Leaflet" and "Readability and Package Insert" in the academic search engine Biblioteca do Conhecimento Online, comprising different bibliographic resources/databases. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses criteria were applied to prepare the draft of the report. Quantitative and qualitative original studies were included. Opinion or review studies not written in English, Portuguese, Italian, French, or Spanish were excluded. RESULTS We identified 202 studies, of which 180 were excluded and 22 were enrolled [two enrolling healthcare professionals, 10 enrolling other type of participants (including patients), three focused on adverse reactions, and 7 descriptive studies]. The package leaflets presented various readability problems, such as complex and difficult to understand texts, small font size, or few illustrations. The main methods to assess the readability of the package leaflet were usability tests or legibility formulae. Limitations with these methods included reduced number of participants; lack of readability formulas specifically validated for specific languages (e.g., Portuguese); and absence of an assessment on patients literacy, health knowledge, cognitive skills, levels of satisfaction, and opinions. CONCLUSIONS Overall, the package leaflets presented various readability problems. In this review, some methodological limitations were identified, including the participation of a limited number of patients and healthcare professionals, the absence of prior assessments of participant literacy, humor or sense of satisfaction, or the predominance of studies not based on role-plays about the use of medicines. These limitations should be avoided in future studies and be considered when interpreting the results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.