Translational Research in Biomedicine, University of Split, School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, Split, 21000, Croatia.
Faculty of Medicine, University of Tuzla, Dr. Tihomila Markovića 1, Tuzla, 75000, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Sep 10;22(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01721-7.
One of the most important formats to disseminate the evidence in health to different populations are Cochrane Plain Language Summaries (PLSs). PLSs should be written in a simplified language, easily understandable and providing clear message for the consumer. The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which PLSs are customized for lay persons, specifically by providing conclusive, comprehensible, and readable messages.
The study analyzed Cochrane PLSs of interventional studies (N = 4360) in the English language published from 1995 to 2019. We categorized the conclusiveness into one of the following categories: "positive", "positive inconclusive", "no evidence", "no opinion", "negative", "negative inconclusive", "unclear", "equal", "equal inconclusive". Language characteristics were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software. The level of readability was measured by SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) index, indicating the number of years of education required to read the text. For each PLS, we also collected the following data: Cochrane Review Network, year of publication and number of authors.
Most of the PLSs (80%) did not have a conclusive message. In 53% PLSs there was no concluding opinion about the studied intervention or the conclusion was unclear. The most frequent conclusiveness category was "no opinion" (30%), and its frequency increased over time. The conclusiveness categories were similarly dispersed across Cochrane Networks. PLSs were written in an objective style, with high levels of analytical tone and clout above neutral, but a lower relation to authenticity and tone. The median number of years of non-specific education needed to read the PLSs was 14.9 (IQR 13.8 to 16.1), indicating that the person needs almost 15 years of general education to read the content with ease.
Most of the Cochrane PLSs provided no concluding opinion or unclear conclusion regarding the effects of analyzed intervention. Analysis of readability indicated that they may be difficult to read for the lay population without medical education. Our results indicate that PLSs may not be so plain, and that the writing of Cochrane PLSs requires more effort. Tools used in this study could improve PLSs and make them better suited for lay audiences.
向不同人群传播健康证据的最重要形式之一是考科蓝简明报告（Plain Language Summaries，PLS）。PLS 应该用简化的语言书写，易于理解，并为消费者提供清晰的信息。本研究的目的是考察 PLS 在多大程度上为非专业人士量身定制，特别是通过提供结论明确、可理解和可读的信息。
本研究分析了 1995 年至 2019 年期间以英文发表的干预性研究的 Cochrane PLS（共 4360 项）。我们将结论性归入以下类别之一：“阳性”、“阳性不确定”、“无证据”、“无意见”、“阴性”、“阴性不确定”、“不清楚”、“相等”、“相等不确定”。使用语言探究与词汇计数（Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count，LIWC）软件分析语言特征。使用简单测测法（Simple Measure of Gobbledygook，SMOG）指数测量可读性水平，该指数表示阅读文本所需的教育年限。对于每个 PLS，我们还收集了以下数据：考科蓝评论网络、出版年份和作者人数。
大多数 PLS（80%）没有明确的结论。在 53%的 PLS 中，没有关于所研究干预措施的结论性意见，或者结论不明确。最常见的结论性类别是“无意见”（30%），且其频率随时间增加。结论性类别在考科蓝网络中分布相似。PLS 以客观的风格书写，具有较高的分析语气和高于中性的影响力，但与真实性和语气的关系较低。阅读 PLS 所需的非特定教育年限中位数为 14.9（IQR 13.8 至 16.1），这表明，需要近 15 年的普通教育才能轻松阅读内容。
大多数 Cochrane PLS 对分析干预措施的效果没有提供明确的意见或不明确的结论。可读性分析表明，对于没有医学教育的非专业人士来说，它们可能难以阅读。我们的研究结果表明，PLS 可能并不那么简单，而且撰写 Cochrane PLS 需要更多的努力。本研究中使用的工具可以改进 PLS，使其更适合非专业听众。
