Trial reportSkeletal radiology2023
Factors influencing patient understanding of information on radiology examinations.
Trial report in Skeletal radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A User-Centric Comprehension Assessment of Prescription Drug Package Inserts in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Assessing ChatGPT's summarization ofAbdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine which factors influence patient understanding of information documents on radiology examinations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a randomized prospective study with 361 consecutive patients. Documents with information on 9 radiology exams were obtained ( www.radiologyinfo.org ). Three versions of each of these were written at low (below 7th grade), middle (8-12th grade), and high (college) reading grades. Before their scheduled radiology exam, patients were randomized to read one document. Their subjective and objective understanding of the information was assessed. Statistics including logistic regression used to assess relationships between demographic factors and document grade level and understanding.
resultsTwenty-eight percent (100/361) of patients completed the study. More females vs. males (85% vs. 66%) read their entire document (p = 0.042). Document grade level was not associated with understanding (p > 0.05). Correlation between college degrees and subjective understanding was positive (r = 0.234, p = 0.019). More females (74% vs. 54%, p = 0.047) and patients with college degrees (72% vs. 48%, p = 0.034) had higher objective understanding. Controlling for document grade level and demographics, patients with college degrees were more likely to have subjective understanding of at least half of the document (OR 7.97, 95% CI [1.24, 51.34], p = 0.029) and females were more likely to have higher objective understanding (OR 2.65, 95% CI [1.06, 6.62], p = 0.037).
conclusionPatients with college degrees understood more on information documents. Females read more of the documents than males and had a higher objective understanding. Reading grade level did not affect understanding.
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.