ArticleInternational journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society2025
Assessment of readability of gynecologic cancer clinical trials literature at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers.
Article in International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the readability of patient-facing gynecologic cancer clinical trial information on National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCI-CCCs) websites.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional analysis of publicly accessible information pertaining to gynecologic cancer clinical trials on NCI-CCC's websites in September 2023. Clinical trial descriptions for endometrial, cervical, and ovarian cancers were assessed. Websites with limited to no descriptive information regarding their clinical trials were excluded. Readability was assessed using Readability Studio Professional Edition software for 5 readability metrics (FORCAST, Fry, Gunning Fog, Raygor Estimate, and SMOG).
resultsOf 56 NCI-CCCs evaluated, 78% (n = 44) had information pertaining to gynecologic cancer clinical trials and gynecologic clinical trial descriptions for readability analysis. A total of 14% (n = 8) lacked clinical trial descriptions and linked to Clinicaltrials.gov and 7% (n = 4) only had information available through additional inquiry within the cancer center. The overall mean reading level across all NCI-CCCs was 15th-grade or collegiate-level reading. The specific readability metric analyses were as follows: FORCAST: 12.4 (range; 9.7-14.7), Fry: 17 (range; 13-17), Gunning Fog: 16.8 (range; 10-19), Raygor Estimate: 16 (range; 7-17), and SMOG: 16.5 (range; 11.4-19). Clinical trial information was stratified by the National Cancer Institute Geographic Management of Cancer Health Disparities Program, with no statistically significant differences in readability or complexity.
conclusionsIn this analysis of publicly available patient-facing information on NCI-CCC websites regarding gynecologic cancer clinical trials, the readability scores were above the high school level across the United States, which far exceeds the recommended readability metric of sixth grade by the National Institutes of Health. Opportunities exist to improve the readability of gynecologic cancer clinical trial online literature, which may facilitate patient access, participation, and understanding.
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.