ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Evaluating the readability of recruitment materials in veterinary clinical research.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Best practices for recruitment in veterinary clinical trials.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Review
- Editorial: Best practices in clinical research conduct in veterinary medicine.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Evaluating the readability of recruitment materials in veterinary clinical research.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOwner comprehension is vital to recruitment and study success, but limited information exists regarding the readability of public-facing veterinary clinical trial descriptions.
objectivesThe current study sought to evaluate the readability of public-facing online veterinary clinical trial descriptions from academic institutions and private referral practices. ANIMALS: None.
methodsThis prospective study assessed readability in a convenience sample of veterinary clinical trial study descriptions using 3 common methods: the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (F-K), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and online Automatic Readability Checker (ARC). Results were compared across specialties and between academic and private institutions.
resultsGrade level and readability consensus scores (RCSs) were obtained for 61 online clinical trial descriptions at universities (n = 49) and private practices (n = 12). Average grade-level RCS for study descriptions was 14.13 (range, 9-21). Using Microsoft Word, the FRES score was higher in descriptions from universities compared to private practices (P = .03), and F-K scores were lower in university compared to private practice descriptions (P = .03). FRES (P = .07), F-K (P = .12), and readability consensus (P = .17) scores obtained from ARC were not different between institution types. Forty-eight studies (79%) had RCSs over 12, equivalent to reading material at college or graduate school levels. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Similar to other areas in veterinary communication, the evaluated veterinary clinical trial descriptions used for advertising and recruitment far exceeded the recommended 6th-grade reading level for medical information. Readability assessments are straightforward to conduct, and ensuring health literacy should be a customary best practice in veterinary medicine and clinical research.
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.