Literature DB >> 26269536

Assessing the readability of ClinicalTrials.gov.

Danny T Y Wu1, David A Hanauer2, Qiaozhu Mei3, Patricia M Clark4, Lawrence C An5, Joshua Proulx6, Qing T Zeng6, V G Vinod Vydiswaran1, Kevyn Collins-Thompson3, Kai Zheng7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: ClinicalTrials.gov serves critical functions of disseminating trial information to the public and helping the trials recruit participants. This study assessed the readability of trial descriptions at ClinicalTrials.gov using multiple quantitative measures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis included all 165,988 trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as of April 30, 2014. To obtain benchmarks, the authors also analyzed 2 other medical corpora: (1) all 955 Health Topics articles from MedlinePlus and (2) a random sample of 100,000 clinician notes retrieved from an electronic health records system intended for conveying internal communication among medical professionals. The authors characterized each of the corpora using 4 surface metrics, and then applied 5 different scoring algorithms to assess their readability. The authors hypothesized that clinician notes would be most difficult to read, followed by trial descriptions and MedlinePlus Health Topics articles.
RESULTS: Trial descriptions have the longest average sentence length (26.1 words) across all corpora; 65% of their words used are not covered by a basic medical English dictionary. In comparison, average sentence length of MedlinePlus Health Topics articles is 61% shorter, vocabulary size is 95% smaller, and dictionary coverage is 46% higher. All 5 scoring algorithms consistently rated CliniclTrials.gov trial descriptions the most difficult corpus to read, even harder than clinician notes. On average, it requires 18 years of education to properly understand these trial descriptions according to the results generated by the readability assessment algorithms. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION: Trial descriptions at CliniclTrials.gov are extremely difficult to read. Significant work is warranted to improve their readability in order to achieve CliniclTrials.gov's goal of facilitating information dissemination and subject recruitment. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association 2015. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CliniclTrials.gov; clinical trial; comprehension; electronic health records; natural language processing; readability

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26269536      PMCID: PMC5009924          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocv062

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  25 in total

1.  Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Authors:  Catherine De Angelis; Jeffrey M Drazen; Frank A Frizelle; Charlotte Haug; John Hoey; Richard Horton; Sheldon Kotzin; Christine Laine; Ana Marusic; A John P M Overbeke; Torben V Schroeder; Hal C Sox; Martin B Van Der Weyden
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-09-08       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Voice-dictated versus typed-in clinician notes: linguistic properties and the potential implications on natural language processing.

Authors:  Kai Zheng; Qiaozhu Mei; Lei Yang; Frank J Manion; Ulysses J Balis; David A Hanauer
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2011-10-22

3.  The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web.

Authors:  D M D'Alessandro; P Kingsley; J Johnson-West
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2001-07

4.  Beyond surface characteristics: a new health text-specific readability measurement.

Authors:  Hyeoneui Kim; Sergey Goryachev; Graciela Rosemblat; Allen Browne; Alla Keselman; Qing Zeng-Treitler
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2007-10-11

5.  A classification of errors in lay comprehension of medical documents.

Authors:  Alla Keselman; Catherine Arnott Smith
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2012-08-20       Impact factor: 6.317

6.  A comparative analysis of the quality of patient education materials from medical specialties.

Authors:  Nitin Agarwal; David R Hansberry; Victor Sabourin; Krystal L Tomei; Charles J Prestigiacomo
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 21.873

7.  Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?

Authors:  S A Grossman; S Piantadosi; C Covahey
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  The MITRE Identification Scrubber Toolkit: design, training, and assessment.

Authors:  John Aberdeen; Samuel Bayer; Reyyan Yeniterzi; Ben Wellner; Cheryl Clark; David Hanauer; Bradley Malin; Lynette Hirschman
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 4.046

9.  Readability, suitability, and characteristics of asthma action plans: examination of factors that may impair understanding.

Authors:  H Shonna Yin; Ruchi S Gupta; Suzy Tomopoulos; Michael S Wolf; Alan L Mendelsohn; Lauren Antler; Dayana C Sanchez; Claudia Hillam Lau; Benard P Dreyer
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2012-12-03       Impact factor: 7.124

10.  Informed consent forms for clinical and research imaging procedures: how much do patients understand?

Authors:  K D Hopper; T R TenHave; J Hartzel
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  17 in total

1.  Identifying unmet informational needs in the inpatient setting to increase patient and caregiver engagement in the context of pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Authors:  Elizabeth Kaziunas; David A Hanauer; Mark S Ackerman; Sung Won Choi
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Initial Readability Assessment of Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria.

Authors:  Tian Kang; Noémie Elhadad; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2015-11-05

Review 3.  Clinical Research Informatics: Supporting the Research Study Lifecycle.

Authors:  S B Johnson
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2017-09-11

Review 4.  Making Sense of Big Textual Data for Health Care: Findings from the Section on Clinical Natural Language Processing.

Authors:  A Névéol; P Zweigenbaum
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2017-09-11

5.  Enriching consumer health vocabulary through mining a social Q&A site: A similarity-based approach.

Authors:  Zhe He; Zhiwei Chen; Sanghee Oh; Jinghui Hou; Jiang Bian
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 6.317

6.  Assessing the Readability of App Descriptions and Investigating its Role in the Choice of mHealth Apps: Retrospective and Prospective Analyses.

Authors:  Wu-Chen Su; Khyati Y Mehta; Kirandeep Gill; Peng Yeh; Ming-Yuan Chih; Danny T Y Wu
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2022-02-21

7.  Practical Aspects of Implementing and Applying Health Care Cloud Computing Services and Informatics to Cancer Clinical Trial Data.

Authors:  Jay G Ronquillo; William T Lester
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2021-08

8.  Readability Formulas and User Perceptions of Electronic Health Records Difficulty: A Corpus Study.

Authors:  Jiaping Zheng; Hong Yu
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  An OMOP CDM-Based Relational Database of Clinical Research Eligibility Criteria.

Authors:  Yuqi Si; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2017

10.  Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Participation: Outcomes of a National Clinical Trial Matching and Navigation Service for Patients With a Blood Cancer.

Authors:  Maria Sae-Hau; Kate Disare; Margo Michaels; Alissa Gentile; Leah Szumita; Katherine Treiman; Elisa S Weiss
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2021-06-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.