ArticlePediatric research2023
The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies.
Article in Pediatric research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Literature Review on the Use of Dried Biofluid Microsampling in Patients With Kidney Disease.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of online cancer information for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: a systematic environmental scan.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2026Article
- The Impact of Specific Prompt Engineering Techniques on the Readability of LLM-Generated Patient Materials in Gastroenterology and Hepatology.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Understanding the small print: a 5-year review of readability in phase I trial information leaflets.Trials · 2026Article
- Scrolls, screens and search bars: exploring family search behaviour and the quality of online information on molar incisor hypomineralisation.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Article
- A framework to amplify the voices of underrepresented children and young people in rare disease research.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Transforming academic medicine through social media: why isn't it working for me?Pediatric research · 2026Article
- A centralized decision-making support consultation response for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: benchmark performance of generative large language models in terms of reliability and readability.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Better understanding: can a large language model safely improve readability of patient information leaflets in interventional radiology?BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Are Artificial Intelligence-generated Patient Leaflets Ready for Clinical Use? A Readability Comparison across Common Orthopaedic Procedures.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Readability of paediatric participant information leaflets in research studies.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Readability of patient education materials on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
- Assessing the Impact of Simplified Language on a Patient-Facing Pharmacogenetic Report: A User Comprehension Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Comparing adolescent glomerular disease clinical outcomes to the clinical outcomes in childhood, young adult, and adult-onset glomerular disease in the CureGN database.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- Article
- Analysis of readability of the top web searches for pediatric inborn errors of fatty acid metabolism.Molecular genetics and metabolism reports · 2025Article
- How to talk to parents.Pediatric radiology · 2025Review
- An Analysis of the Readability of Public-Facing Information Relating to Prevention of Infectious Diseases by Vaccination.British journal of biomedical science · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoor literacy can impact achieving optimal health outcomes. The aim of this project was to assess the readability of parent information leaflets (PILs).
methodsA single-centre study using paediatric PILs. Five readability tests were applied (Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI) and Automated Readability Index (ARI)). Results were compared to standards and by subtype.
resultsA total of 109 PILs were obtained; mean (±SD) number of characters was 14,365 (±12,055), total words 3066 (±2541), number of sentences 153 (±112), lexical density 49 (±3), number of characters per word 4.7 (±0.1), number of syllables per word 1.6 (±0.1) and number of words per sentence 19.1 (±2.5). The Flesch reading ease score was 51.1 (±5.6), equating to reading age 16-17 years. The mean PIL readability scores were GFI (12.18), SMOG (11.94), FKGL (10.89), CLI (10.08) and ARI (10.1). There were 0 (0%) PILs classed as easy (score <6), 21 (19%) mid-range (6-10) and 88 (81%) were difficult (>10). They were significantly above the recommended reading age (p < 0.0001) and commercial studies were least accessible (p < 0.01).
conclusionExisting PILs are above the national reading level. Researchers should use readability tools to ensure that they are accessible. IMPACT: Poor literacy is a barrier to accessing research and achieving good health outcomes. Current parent information leaflets are pitched far higher than the national reading age. This study provides data to demonstrate the reading age of a large portfolio of research studies. This work raises awareness of literacy as a barrier to research participation and provides tips on how to improve the readability of patient information leaflets to guide investigators.
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.