ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2026
Enhancing patient understanding of ovarian cancer: creation, validation and user-readability evaluation of an education booklet.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient education booklets serve as supplemental educational tools, delivering essential information to patients and caregivers about medical conditions, safe medication use, and necessary lifestyle adjustments. Compared to verbal education, validated written materials are more effective in accurately conveying critical information without losing its core message. Aim and objectives: To prepare a patient education booklet on ovarian cancer, perform its validation and translation; and to carry out its user-readability assessment. Materials and methods: The booklet was developed by referring various primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The prepared booklet was validated by a committee of 10 experts, translated into Kannada and then back-translated for accuracy. Ten MCQs based on the booklet were prepared, validated and translated. Readability was assessed among 35 participants. The opinion of the participants on the content, layout and design of the booklet was also attained. Results: 35 subjects were included for user-readability testing. The overall readability score of 52.28 ± 15.16 was increased to 85.71 ± 11.95. 91.4% of the subjects had good opinion on the booklet's content, layout and design. Conclusion: This study concluded that the validated booklet had a significant effect on the study subjects' level of knowledge.
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.