ArticleJAMA network open2022
Accuracy in Patient Understanding of Common Medical Phrases.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 4 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.
- An interdisciplinary mixed-methods systematic review of multidimensional factors shaping the outpatient waiting experience.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- AI-generated videos in medical education: systematic review.BMJ open quality · 2025Pooled it
- MetaAnatomical sciences education · 2025Pooled it
- Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Patients' experience with medical communication about medically unexplained symptoms.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Communication barriers for d/Deaf people with cancer: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for lay summaries of radiology reports using tailored prompting strategies and mixed-method assessment.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Hyaluronidase and the language of filler reversal: Why "dissolving filler" may be the wrong term.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Do you Really Want to Know-Patient and Physician Attitudes of Physicians and English-Proficient Asian Patients toward Direct Release of Radiology Reports in Singapore.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of a Clear Communication Training on Medical Residents' Use of Jargon in Written Messages to Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Errors in AI-Transformed Patient-Centered Mental Health Documentation Written by Psychiatrists: Qualitative Pre-Post Study.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- A multicenter multifunctional assessment of large language models in pure-tone audiogram interpretation for patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Medical Question Answering on a Heart Failure Dataset: Performance Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large Language models on pediatric asthma: a comparative study of Claude3-Opus, Gemini 2.0, ChatGPT-4o, and DeepSeek-a cross-sectional questionnaire study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic Factors Impact the Perception of Healthcare Experiences in Patients with Cirrhosis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Social Determinants of Health and Patient Experiences During Transitions From Inpatient Rehabilitation to Home.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Stroke patients and caregivers' experiences and satisfaction with post-discharge self-management support in Ghana: A qualitative study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Exploring health inequalities by language proficiency; A routine health records study set in England.PloS one · 2026Article
- Information Quality Requirements for AI-Generated Patient Education Materials in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Care: A Directed Qualitative Content Analysis of Patient and Nurse Perspectives.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Despite acknowledging that medical jargon should be avoided, health care practitioners frequently use it when communicating with patients. Objective: To characterize the understanding of common medical jargon terms by surveying a cross section of the general public and studying phrases that have established meanings in regular usage but different meanings in a medical context (eg, negative and positive test results). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, participants indicated their understanding of phrases that may have different meanings in medicine than in colloquial English via a mix of short answer and multiple choice questions. Several questions included paired phrases to assess for differences in understanding with or without jargon. Volunteers were recruited at the 2021 Minnesota State Fair near St Paul, Minnesota. An electronic survey was given to a volunteer sample of 215 adults (>18 years) who did not work or train to work in the medical field and spoke and read English. Exposures: Completing a written or verbal survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was an accurate understanding of the medical terminology. Free-text responses were coded by 2 researchers for comprehension. Secondary outcomes looked for associations between volunteer demographics and understanding. Results: The 215 respondents (135 [63%] female; mean [SD] age, 42 [17] years) demonstrated a varied ability to interpret medical jargon phrases. For example, most participants (207 [96%]) knew that negative cancer screening results meant they did not have cancer, but fewer participants (143 [79%]) knew that the phrase "your tumor is progressing" was bad news, or that positive lymph nodes meant the cancer had spread (170 [67%]). While most (171 [80%]) recognized that an unremarkable chest radiography was good news, only 44 participants (21%) correctly understood that a clinician saying their radiography was impressive was generally bad news. In each of the paired phrases comparing jargon vs nonjargon approaches, the nonjargon phrase was understood significantly better (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that several common phrases are misunderstood when used in a medical setting, with the interpreted meaning frequently the exact opposite of what is intended.
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.