ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Processes for Developing Plain Language Versions of Guidelines Recommendations: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
rationalePlain language recommendations (PLRs) offer clear and understandable statements based on trustworthy guidelines.
objectiveWe aimed to synthesise methodological evidence for developing PLRs in the health care context.
methodsWe followed the JBI methodology for scoping review development and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping review reporting. PLRs in the context of health care guidelines or patient versions of guidelines were included. A systematic search was run in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and the repositories of guideline developers until November 2023. Due to the research´s longitudinal nature, the search was updated in May 2025 to verify findings gathered so far. Reviewers extracted data independently and synthesised evidence narratively.
resultsIn total, 2512 citations and 66 repositories of guideline developers were screened. Nine articles from databases and eight documents representing seven sources of evidence from guideline developers' repositories were included in the final synthesis. Information about PLRs, their development, and methodology were summarised. Various infographics are used when creating PLRs. The target groups of PLRs are, e.g. patients, policymakers, the public, and healthcare providers. The patients could be involved in creating PLRs. The developers can draw from the GIN Public Toolkit, RIGHT-PVG checklist or DISCERN. Although these methodologies generally cover the development of knowledge translation tools and patients' version of guidelines (PVGs). Numerous tools can be used to translate scientific language and to formulate PLRs.
conclusionWe propose policy support for the conduct and implementation of PLRs for healthcare guidelines drawn from available evidence-based resources identified by our review. It is desirable to report approaches for communicating recommendations from healthcare guidelines and verify the actionability and understandability of these formats.
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.