| Ref ID | 911 |
| First Author | J. Suto |
| Journal | CANCER MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
| URL | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.5825 |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Oncology • Language • Abstract / summary |
| Problem(s) |
• Unwieldy/ difficult to read • Inconclusive or lack of recommendations • Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Croatia |
| Aim | To assess the language characteristics of Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncology interventions in comparison with corresponding Cochrane scientific abstracts (SAs). |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 275 plain language summaries of the included Cochrane systematic reviews of oncology interventions available in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to Feb 2019. The overall median Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index for 275 PLSs was 13.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.8–13.3). Readability scores did not differ across Cochrane Review Groups. Scientific abstracts had a higher readability index than the corresponding Plain Language Summaries (median = 16.6, 95% CI = 16.4–16.8). Regarding linguistic characteristics, Plain Language Summaries were shorter than scientific abstracts, with less use of analytical tone, but more use of a positive emotional tone and authenticity. Overall, the ‘Unclear’ category of conclusiveness was the most common among all Plain Language Summaries. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 275 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 4403 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |