ArticleJournal of patient experience2026
The Readability of British Association of Urology Society Patient Information Leaflets: Have We Done Enough for Patients to Understand?
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Patient Information leaflets (PILs) from the British Association of Urologists (BAUS) are commonly used to communicate to patients about surgical procedures, but previous studies have highlighted that they are too difficult for some patients to read. BAUS PILs have since been rewritten using guidelines which emphasize readability. Objectives: To identify if the readability of BAUS PILs has changed compared to historical versions. Methods: Current BAUS PILs (published 2020-2025) were compared with historical PILs with similar titles from 2014 to 2016 using a custom Python script. Results: Readability scores improved by a significant ( Conclusion: While there have been small improvements in urology PILs for patients, they remain too difficult for many patients, and more work is needed to improve readability.
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.