ArticleCancer medicine2023
Linguistic analysis of plain language summaries and corresponding scientific summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07140107 (Patients' Perceptions and Comprehension of Original Versus AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Oncology Systematic Reviews), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis of Expert, Clinician, and Health Care User Interactions With Summary of Findings Tables: Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Classification of Cochrane Plain Language Summaries by Conclusiveness Using Transformer-Based Models and ChatGPT: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Observational
- Helping people navigate and make sense of cancer information: challenges and perspectives.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-4o Compared With Human Researchers in Writing Plain-Language Summaries for Cochrane Reviews: A Blinded, Randomized Non-Inferiority Controlled Trial.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- 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
- The use of a large language model to create plain language summaries of evidence reviews in healthcare: A feasibility study.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Linguistic analysis of plain language summaries and corresponding scientific summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCochrane plain language summaries (PLSs) are an important format to present high-quality healthcare evidence to patients with cancer and their families. They should be written in a way everyone can understand, since they serve as a tool in decision-making and present a bridge to overcome the gap between the healthcare users and professionals.
objectiveThe aim of the study was to assess the language characteristics of PLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncology interventions in comparison with corresponding Cochrane scientific abstracts (SAs).
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we included all Cochrane PLSs and SAs of systematic reviews of oncology interventions available in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We assessed text readability, measured using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, and the prevalence of words related to different language tones (clout, authenticity, emotions and analytical tones). Two independent assessors categorized the conclusiveness of the efficacy of interventions into nine categories.
resultsThe overall median SMOG index for 275 PLSs was 13.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.8-13.3). Readability scores did not differ across Cochrane Review Groups. SAs had a higher readability index than the corresponding PLSs (median = 16.6, 95% CI = 16.4-16.8). Regarding linguistic characteristics, PLSs were shorter than SAs, with less use of analytical tone, but more use of a positive emotional tone and authenticity. Overall, the 'Unclear' category of conclusiveness was the most common among all PLSs. Also, PLSs with 'No evidence' conclusions were the shortest and had the lowest SMOG index.
conclusionPLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncological interventions have low readability and most give unclear conclusions about the efficacy of interventions. PLSs should be simplified so that patients and their families can benefit from appropriate health information on evidence synthesis. Further research is needed into reasons for unclear language to describe evidence from oncology trials.
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.