ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016
Cochrane plain language summaries are highly heterogeneous with low adherence to the standards.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- ChatGPT-4o Compared With Human Researchers in Writing Plain-Language Summaries for Cochrane Reviews: A Blinded, Randomized Non-Inferiority Controlled Trial.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Androgens for genitourinary and vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Using ChatGPT to Improve the Presentation of Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Systematic Reviews About Oncology Interventions: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Jargon and Readability in Plain Language Summaries of Health Research: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- The use of a large language model to create plain language summaries of evidence reviews in healthcare: A feasibility study.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Linguistic analysis of plain language summaries and corresponding scientific summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- A survey of automated methods for biomedical text simplification.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Conclusiveness, linguistic characteristics and readability of Cochrane plain language summaries of intervention reviews: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Comparison of innovative communication approaches in nutrition to promote and improve health literacy.The Ulster medical journal · 2022Review
- Paragraph-level Simplification of Medical Texts.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. North American Chapter. Meeting · 2021Article
- Lessons Learned from Developing Plain Language Summaries of Research Studies.Health literacy research and practice · 2021Article
- How to Put It Plainly? Findings From Two Randomized Controlled Studies on Writing Plain Language Summaries for Psychological Meta-Analyses.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Framing the numerical findings of Cochrane plain language summaries: two randomized controlled trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Languages for different health information readers: multitrait-multimethod content analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews textual summary formats.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Something for everyone.eLife · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to analyze whether Cochrane plain language summaries (PLSs) adhere to the Standards for the reporting of Plain Language Summaries in new Cochrane Intervention Reviews (PLEACS).
methodsA systematic analysis of adherence to the measurable PLEACS items was performed for Cochrane PLSs published from March 2013 to the end of January 2015. Duplicate independent data extraction was performed. An adherence score was calculated for each PLS and for the Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) that published them.
resultsOf the 1738 analyzed PLSs, not a single one adhered fully to the measured PLEACS items. The highest adherence was found for absence of details of the search strategy (99 % adherence), and the lowest adherence for an item mandating to address quality according to the GRADE system (0.7 % adherence). Overall adherence percentage of PLSs reporting reviews with included studies was 57 %. Different CRGs had a wide range of adherence scores.
conclusionsCochrane plain language summaries are highly heterogeneous with a low adherence to the PLEACS standards. Therefore, there is much room for improving the content and consistency of the PLS. A standardization of PLSs is necessary to ensure delivery of proper and consistent information for consumers.
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.