Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27226241›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2016

Readability Analysis of the Package Leaflets for Biological Medicines Available on the Internet Between 2007 and 2013: An Analytical Longitudinal Study.

María Ángeles Piñero-López, Pilar Modamio, Cecilia F Lastra, Eduardo L Mariño

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Developing a framework regarding a complex risk based methodology in the evaluation of hazards associated with medicinal products sourced via the internet.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

María Ángeles Piñero-LópezClinical Pharmacy and Pharmacotherapy Unit, Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Technology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4159-0436

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe package leaflet included in the packaging of all medicinal products plays an important role in the transmission of medicine-related information to patients. Therefore, in 2009, the European Commission published readability guidelines to try to ensure that the information contained in the package leaflet is understood by patients.

objectiveThe main objective of this study was to calculate and compare the readability levels and length (number of words) of the package leaflets for biological medicines in 2007, 2010, and 2013.

methodsThe sample of this study included 36 biological medicine package leaflets that were downloaded from the European Medicines Agency website in three different years: 2007, 2010, and 2013. The readability of the selected package leaflets was obtained using the following readability formulas: SMOG grade, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, and Szigriszt's perspicuity index. The length (number of words) of the package leaflets was also measured. Afterwards, the relationship between these quantitative variables (three readability indexes and length) and categorical (or qualitative) variables were analyzed. The categorical variables were the year when the package leaflet was downloaded, the package leaflet section, type of medicine, year of authorization of biological medicine, and marketing authorization holder.

resultsThe readability values of all the package leaflets exceeded the sixth-grade reading level, which is the recommended value for health-related written materials. No statistically significant differences were found between the three years of study in the readability indexes, although differences were observed in the case of the length (P=.002), which increased over the study period. When the relationship between readability indexes and length and the other variables was analyzed, statistically significant differences were found between package leaflet sections (P<.001) and between the groups of medicine only with regard to the length over the three studied years (P=.002 in 2007, P=.007 in 2010, P=.009 in 2013). Linear correlation was observed between the readability indexes (SMOG grade and Flesch-Kincaid grade level: r(2)=.92; SMOG grade and Szigriszt's perspicuity index: r(2)=.81; Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Szigriszt's perspicuity index: r(2)=.95), but not between the readability indexes and the length (length and SMOG grade: r(2)=.05; length and Flesch-Kincaid grade level: r(2)=.03; length and Szigriszt's perspicuity index: r(2)=.02).

conclusionsThere was no improvement in the readability of the package leaflets studied between 2007 and 2013 despite the European Commission's 2009 guideline on the readability of package leaflets. The results obtained from the different readability formulas coincided from a qualitative point of view. Efforts to improve the readability of package leaflets for biological medicines are required to promote the understandability and accessibility of this online health information by patients and thereby contribute to the appropriate use of medicines and medicine safety.

Indexed as

ComprehensionDrug LabelingInternetReadingEuropeGuidelines as TopicHumansLongitudinal StudiesPatient SafetyPublicationsbiological medicinesonline health informationpackage leafletreadability

Identifiers

PMID27226241
PMCPMC4899622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.