ArticlePloS one2025
Comparative readability of information on different treatment options for breast cancer, based on WeChat public accounts.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- An ARIMAX model integrating Baidu index for improved hand, foot, and mouth disease incidence prediction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the readability of information on different treatment options for breast cancer from WeChat public accounts, propose targeted improvement strategies based on the evaluation of the results of the various treatment options, and provide a reference for producers of WeChat public accounts from which to write highly readable information regarding breast cancer treatment options.
methodsWith "breast cancer" as keywords in April 2021, searches were implemented on Sogou WeChat website (https://weixin.sogou.com/) and WeChat mobile app. The selected WPAs were aimed to provided breast cancer health information, and the four latest articles of each WPA were included in the evaluation. Two independent observers assessed the readability of the articles through the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool, and compared the readability of information on different treatment options, i.e., surgical treatment, medical treatment, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and comprehensive treatment.
resultsA total of 136 articles on different types of breast cancer treatments from 37 WeChat public accounts were included in the present study. The median SAM score was 50 (IQR, 41-60). In terms of treatment options, the readability of articles in the CAM category scored higher in the content 75 (IQR, 63-81), learning stimulation and motivation 75 (IQR, 50-83) and cultural appropriateness 75 (IQR, 75-75) categories than in the medical and surgical treatment categories (P < 0.05). Additionally, the readability of articles in the CAM category scored higher in the cultural appropriateness 75 (IQR, 75-75) category than those for comprehensive and medical treatment (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe overall readability of information on breast cancer treatment options in WeChat public accounts was in the lower portion of the "adequate" level. The readability of articles on medical treatment options is poor, especially on clinical trial articles, which could be improved in terms of content, graphics, learning stimulation, and motivation to make them more suitable for public reading.
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.