ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Framing the numerical findings of Cochrane plain language summaries: two randomized controlled trials.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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.
Framing of Numerical Information in Cochrane Summaries: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparison of Different Frames of Numerical Information in Cochrane Plain Language: Randomized Controlled Trial
Patients' Perceptions and Comprehension of Original Versus AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Oncology Systematic Reviews
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Article
- Practices and Barriers in Developing and Disseminating Plain-Language Resources Reporting Medical Research Information: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2024Article
- Linguistic analysis of plain language summaries and corresponding scientific summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Conclusiveness, linguistic characteristics and readability of Cochrane plain language summaries of intervention reviews: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- How to Put It Plainly? Findings From Two Randomized Controlled Studies on Writing Plain Language Summaries for Psychological Meta-Analyses.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCochrane systematic review Plain language Summaries (CSR PLSs should serve as a tool for the evidence translation to non-medical population. However, the evidence of optimal type of numerical presentation in CSR PLSs is still scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate readers' comprehension and preferences for different presentation of findings, including framing and numerical data, in Cochrane systematic review Plain Language Summaries (CSR PLSs).
methodsWe conducted a parallel randomized trial and a crossover randomized trial at the School of Medicine and family practice offices in Split, Croatia. The participants were students and consumers. We assessed possible differences in comprehension, measured by four questions on PLS content, of CSR PLSs depending on the positive or negative framing of results (n = 91) (Trial 1) or using percentages or frequencies for the presentation of results (n = 245) (Trial 2). The outcome measures were comprehension of PLS content, perceived effectiveness of the treatment and readiness to use the treatment (all on 1-10 scales).
resultsIn Trial 1 we found no difference in readers' perception of the effectiveness of the described treatment, desire that the treatment be offered by their family doctor, readiness to use the treatment, or comprehension when CSR PLS results were presented positively or negatively. In Trial 2 we found no difference in CSR PLS comprehension when results were presented as natural frequencies or percentages (BF
conclusionsNumerical presentation and framing direction of results appear to have no significant impact on understanding of messages in CSR PLSs.
trial registrationThe trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Protocol registration numbers: Trial 1: NCT03442387; Trial 2: NCT03554252.
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.