ArticleLung2024
Readability of Patient-Facing Information of Antibiotics Used in the WHO Short 6-Month and 9-Month All Oral Treatment for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis.
Article in Lung, 2024. 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.
- Readability of patient information leaflets for commonly used medicines in the UK, Germany and Türkiye: a cross-sectional document analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- LUNG Year in Review: 2024.Lung · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesReadability of patient-facing information of oral antibiotics detailed in the WHO all oral short (6 months, 9 months) has not been described to date. The aim of this study was therefore to examine (i) how readable patient-facing TB antibiotic information is compared to readability reference standards and (ii) if there are differences in readability between high-incidence countries versus low-incidence countries.
methodsTen antibiotics, including bedaquiline, clofazimine, ethambutol, ethionamide, isoniazid, levofloxacin, linezolid, moxifloxacin, pretomanid, pyrazinamide, were investigated. TB antibiotic information sources were examined, consisting of 85 Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) and 40 antibiotic web resouces. Of these 85 PILs, 72 were taken from the National Medicines Regulator from six countries (3 TB high-incidence [Rwanda, Malaysia, South Africa] + 3 TB low-incidence [UK, Ireland, Malta] countries). Readability data was grouped into three categories, including (i) high TB-incidence countries (n = 33 information sources), (ii) low TB-incidence countries (n = 39 information sources) and (iii) web information (n = 53). Readability was calculated using Readable software, to obtain four readability scores [(i) Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), (ii) Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), (iii) Gunning Fog Index and (iv) SMOG Index], as well as two text metrics [words/sentence, syllables/word].
resultsMean readability scores of patient-facing TB antibiotic information for FRE and FKGL, were 47.4 ± 12.6 (sd) (target ≥ 60) and 9.2 ± 2.0 (target ≤ 8.0), respectively. There was no significant difference in readability between low incidence countries and web resources, but there was significantly poorer readability associated with PILs from high incidence countries versus low incidence countries (FRE; p = 0.0056: FKGL; p = 0.0095).
conclusionsReadability of TB antibiotic PILs is poor. Improving readability of PILs should be an important objective when preparing patient-facing written materials, thereby improving patient health/treatment literacy.
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.