ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2017
Evaluating the Use of Plain Language in a Cancer Clinical Trial Website/App.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploration of experience and sustained engagement with a web-based cognitive rehabilitation intervention amongst patients with aggressive lymphoma: a qualitative sub-study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Trial
- Evaluating the Readability of Clinical Trial Content for Patients on Pharmaceutical Company Websites.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- Experiences of health information-seeking among patients with cancer in China: a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The Development of the Oncology Center of Excellence Patient-Friendly Language Glossary of Oncology Clinical Trial Terms.The oncologist · 2023Article
- Health Communication and Decision Making about Vaccine Clinical Trials during a Pandemic.Journal of health communication · 2020Article
- Connecting the public with clinical trial options: The ResearchMatch Trials Today tool.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
- Readability of Cancer Clinical Trials Websites.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medically complex titles and descriptions found on clinical trial websites and online applications present a barrier to comprehension for users from the general public. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of plain language trial descriptions for user comprehension of basic trial details. Two hundred seventeen volunteers recruited from patient waiting areas completed 441 user tests of ten plain language trial descriptions. The majority of volunteers adequately comprehended the cancer type and basic inclusion/exclusion criteria from plain language trial descriptions. Difficulty comprehending the treatment being studied was seen in seven of ten descriptions tested. Revision and retesting of the seven trial descriptions showed continued user challenges in comprehending the treatment being studied. Plain language clinical trial descriptions integrated into a website/app allowed users to understand basic inclusion/exclusion criteria. Despite plain language used, discerning the treatment being studied may be difficult for some users. Integration of plain language descriptions into clinical trial online applications can help users understand trial basics. Further research regarding effective use of plain language to communicate the treatment being studied is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26854082What 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.