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.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Readability of patient information leaflets for commonly used medicines in the UK, Germany and Türkiye: a cross-sectional document analysis.BMC health services research · 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
- Using Animated Videos to Promote the Accessibility and Understandability of Package Leaflets: Retrospective Observational Study Evaluating the First Year of Implementation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Observational
- Article
- Employing computational linguistics techniques to identify limited patient health literacy: Findings from the ECLIPPSE study.Health services research · 2021Article
- Patients' Experiences and Perspectives of Receiving Written Medicine Information About Medicines: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Readability assessment of package leaflets of biosimilars.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Simplifying drug package leaflets written in Spanish by using word embedding.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2017Article
- Readability Formulas and User Perceptions of Electronic Health Records Difficulty: A Corpus Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.