ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019
Languages for different health information readers: multitrait-multimethod content analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews textual summary formats.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the readability of ChatGPT and Bard in medical communication: a meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2022Pooled it
- Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Using ChatGPT to Improve the Presentation of Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Systematic Reviews About Oncology Interventions: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Conclusiveness, readability and textual characteristics of plain language summaries from medical and non-medical organizations: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Retrieval augmentation of large language models for lay language generation.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Investigating the Readability and Linguistic, Psychological, and Emotional Characteristics of Digital Dementia Information Written in the English Language: Multitrait-Multimethod Text Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Linguistic analysis of plain language summaries and corresponding scientific summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Demands on Health Information and Clinical Practice Guidelines for Patients from the Perspective of Adults with Mental Illness and Family Members: A Qualitative Study with In-Depth Interviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Conclusiveness, linguistic characteristics and readability of Cochrane plain language summaries of intervention reviews: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Optimizing Readability and Format of Plain Language Summaries for Medical Research Articles: Cross-sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Predicting the Easiness and Complexity of English Health Materials for International Tertiary Students With Linguistically Enhanced Machine Learning Algorithms: Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Paragraph-level Simplification of Medical Texts.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. North American Chapter. Meeting · 2021Article
- Use of Machine Learning Algorithms to Predict the Understandability of Health Education Materials: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Emotional tones in scientific writing: comparison of commercially funded studies and non-commercially funded orthopedic studies.Acta orthopaedica · 2021Review
- Sentiment Analysis for Necessary Preview of 30-Day Mortality in Sepsis Patients and the Control Strategies.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough subjective expressions and linguistic fluency have been shown as important factors in processing and interpreting textual facts, analyses of these traits in textual health information for different audiences are lacking. We analyzed the readability and linguistic psychological and emotional characteristics of different textual summary formats of Cochrane systematic reviews.
methodsWe performed a multitrait-multimethod cross-sectional study of Press releases available at Cochrane web site (n = 162) and corresponding Scientific abstracts (n = 158), Cochrane Clinical Answers (n = 35) and Plain language summaries in English (n = 156), French (n = 101), German (n = 41) and Croatian (n = 156). We used SMOG index to assess text readability of all text formats, and natural language processing tools (IBM Watson Tone Analyzer, Stanford NLP Sentiment Analysis and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count) to examine the affective states and subjective information in texts of Scientific abstracts, Plain language summaries and Press releases.
resultsAll text formats had low readability, with SMOG index ranging from a median of 15.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.3-15.9) for Scientific abstracts to 14.7 (95% CI 14.4-15.0) for Plain language summaries. In all text formats, "Sadness" was the most dominantly perceived emotional tone and the style of writing was perceived as "Analytical" and "Tentative". At the psychological level, all text formats exhibited the predominant "Openness" tone, and Press releases scored higher on the scales of "Conscientiousness", "Agreeableness" and "Emotional range". Press releases had significantly higher scores than Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries on the dimensions of "Clout", and "Emotional tone".
conclusionsAlthough the readability of Plain language summaries was higher than that of text formats targeting more expert audiences, the required literacy was much higher than the recommended US 6th grade level. The language of Press releases was generally more engaging than that of Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries, which are written by the authors of systematic reviews. Preparation of textual summaries about health evidence for different audiences should take into account readers' subjective experiences to encourage cognitive processing and reaction to the provided information.
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.