ArticleBritish journal of biomedical science2024
Improving Biomedical Science Literacy and Patient-Directed Knowledge of Tuberculosis (TB): A Cross-Sectional Infodemiology Study Examining Readability of Patient-Facing TB Information.
Article in British journal of biomedical science, 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.
- "Now you're talking my language" - Improving health literacy and patient-directed knowledge of scientific abstracts through provision of plain language summaries created by artificial intelligence: A cross sectional infodemiology study.The Ulster medical journal · 2025Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tuberculosis (TB) continues be the leading cause of death globally due to an infectious agent. There is a paucity of data describing the readability of patient-facing TB information for service users. The aim of this study was to calculate the readability of multiple global TB information sources. Methods: Information on tuberculosis (n = 150 sources) included nine categories, Results: Mean readability values for TB information for the FRE and FKGL were 35.6 ± 1.6 (standard error of mean (SEM)) (US Target ≥60; UK Target ≥90) and 12.3 ± 0.3 (US Target ≤8; UK Target ≤6), respectively, with mean words per sentence and syllables per word of 17.2 and 1.8, respectively. Cochrane Plain Language Summaries had similar readability scores to their matching scientific abstract (p = 0.15). LabTestsOnlineUK yielded a mean FRE score of 51.5 ± 1.2, a mean FKGL score of 10.2 ± 0.5 and text metric scores of 16.7 ± 2.3 and 1.6, for words per sentence and syllables per word, respectively. In descending order, TB information from international governments, hospitals and LabTestsOnlineUK were the most readable (FRE = 57.9, 54.1 and 51.5, respectively), whereas scientific abstracts and Cochrane abstracts were the most difficult to read (13.0 and 30.2, respectively). Conclusion: Patient-facing TB information analysed had poor readability. Effective communication of biomedical science concepts and information relating to TB is vital for service users to enhance their health literacy of tuberculosis, thereby promoting better clinical outcomes. Biomedical scientists are important custodians of scientific information for their service user populations, including other healthcare professionals within the TB multidisciplinary (MDT) team and patient service users. When preparing TB information, this should be checked and modified in real time employing readability calculators, to align with health readability targets.
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.