ArticlePloS one2024
Equivalent user experience and improved community augmented meta-analyses knowledge for a new version of a Plain Language Summary guideline.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Plain Language Summaries (PLS) offer a promising solution to make meta-analytic psychological research more accessible for non-experts and laypeople. However, existing writing guidelines for this type of publication are seldom grounded in empirical studies. To address this and to test two versions of a new PLS guideline, we investigated the impact of PLSs of psychological meta-analyses on laypeoples' PLS-related knowledge and their user experience (accessibility, understanding, empowerment). In a preregistered online-study, N = 2,041 German-speaking participants read two PLSs. We varied the inclusion of a disclaimer on PLS authorship, a statement on the causality of effects, additional information on community augmented meta-analyses (CAMA) and the PLS guideline version. Results partially confirmed our preregistered hypotheses: Participants answered knowledge items on CAMA more correctly when a PLS contained additional information on CAMA, and there were no user experience differences between the old and the new guideline versions. Unexpectedly, a priori hypotheses regarding improved knowledge via the use of a disclaimer and a causality statement were not confirmed. Reasons for this, as well as general aspects related to science communication via PLSs aimed at educating laypeople, are discussed.
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.