ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2026
Optimizing Development of Plain Language Summaries of Clinical Trial Results.
Article in Health literacy research and practice, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlain language summaries (PLSs) play a crucial role in communicating complex clinical trial information to patients and the public. Due to the European Union Clinical Trials Regulation (EU CTR) 536/2014 requirement to disclose PLSs in parallel with the technical results, clinical trial sponsors will need to develop such summaries swiftly and efficiently, while avoiding potential obstacles. Their creation can be challenging for sponsor company stakeholders who typically use highly technical, scientific language. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: This manuscript describes the PLS development and review process established at our company. It also considers the collection of feedback via an anonymous survey, both of which were intended to optimize PLS preparation. Finally, it explores internal stakeholder preparedness for EU CTR requirements, and further opportunities to enhance PLS quality to better support patient centricity. IMPLEMENTATION: We observed a learning curve among stakeholders (content contributors and reviewers) and an enhanced appreciation for the PLS process.
resultsThis resulted in improved best practice principles for PLS writing, such as describing only the primary endpoint(s) and adverse drug reactions. The process of PLS development was streamlined following implementation of stakeholders' feedback received in PLS surveys circulated in 2023 and 2024. This led to increased satisfaction with the instructions provided for stakeholders and with the processes for PLS development, including the company-developed PLS template and glossary of plain language terms. Here we suggest that regularly adjusting PLS tools based on continuous feedback from internal stakeholders contributes to a more efficient and clear process. LESSONS LEARNED: Optimization of the PLS development process using feedback from internal stakeholders supports efficiency, clarity, and patient-centricity, as well as ensuring preparedness for EU CTR requirements.
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.