ArticleBMJ open2024
Are plain language summaries published in health journals written according to instructions and health literacy principles? A systematic environmental scan.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT07140107 (Patients' Perceptions and Comprehension of Original Versus AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Oncology Systematic Reviews), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Patients' Perceptions and Comprehension of Original Versus AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Oncology Systematic Reviews
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plain Language Summarization of Environmental Health Research Using Generative AI: Community-Engaged Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Perspectives of people with chronic illness about plain language summaries: a qualitative analysis.Health promotion international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlain language summaries (PLSs) are easy-to-understand summaries of research articles that should follow principles of plain language and health literacy. PLS author instructions from health journals help guide authors on word count/PLS length, structure and the use of jargon. However, it is unclear whether published PLSs currently adhere to author instructions.
objectivesThis study aims to determine (1) the degree of compliance of published PLSs against the PLS author instructions in health journals and (2) the extent to which PLSs meet health literacy principles. STUDY
designWe conducted a three-part systematic environmental scan.
methodsWe examined 26 health journals identified from a previous review. In part 1, we assessed the inclusion frequency of PLSs in the 26 journals; in part 2, we assessed the level of compliance of PLSs with PLS author instructions; and in part 3, we conducted a health literacy assessment of the PLSs.
resultsPart 1: we found PLSs for 20/26 (76.9%) included journals. Part 2: no journal achieved 100% compliance with PLS author instructions. The highest level was 86% and the lowest was 0%. Part 3: no PLS was written at a readability level suitable for a general audience. The mean reading level was grade 15.8 (range 10.2-21.2and mean percentage of complex words, 31% (range 8.5%-49.8%). DISCUSSION: PLSs are an important means through which consumers can access research findings. We found a lack of compliance between PLS author instructions and PLSs published in health journals that may impede access and use by consumers. This study highlights the need for better ways to support authors adhere to PLS instructions and improved monitoring by journals.
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.