ArticleBMJ open2024
Readability of online and offline written health information: a protocol of a systematic review of systematic reviews.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealthcare organisations should create and disseminate readable information to citizens and patients to reduce the level of health literacy required for individuals. Several systematic reviews have reported overviews of the readability of written health information for each subject area. This systematic review of systematic reviews will synthesise evidence from existing systematic reviews to provide an overview of studies that assessed readability in diverse areas and identify gaps to be filled in future research and practice to improve the readability of health information. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The following databases will be searched: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar. The reference lists of the eligible studies will be searched to identify additional studies. The eligible literature will be systematic reviews of published empirical studies that quantitatively assessed the readability of health information for patients and/or citizens. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts of all identified literature. A lead researcher will extract the data, and a second reviewer will check the results. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion, and a third reviewer will be involved if necessary. Data, such as the characteristics of the systematic review, characteristics of the reviewed literature in the systematic review, subject area, material characteristics, definition(s) of readability, readability assessment methods, main results and quality assessment, will be extracted. The findings will be synthesised in a numerical summary and a descriptive and narrative review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not involve any ethical concerns. The results and implications of this systematic review will be disseminated at conferences and in peer-reviewed 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.