A plain-language summary is a short and clearly stated version of a study\'s results using non-scientific vocabulary that provide many advantages for patients and clinicians in the process of shared decision-making.
The primary objective was to investigate the extent to which published reports of physiotherapy interventions provide plain-language summaries. We investigate as the secondary objectives if the available plain-language summaries are at a suitable reading level for a lay person and if inclusion of plain-language summaries in these reports is increasing over time and is associated with trial quality (i.e. PEDro score).
All 4421 randomised controlled trials (RCT), systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines that included plain-language summaries indexed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) were included.
Proportion of published reports with plain-language summaries, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL).
The number of published reports with a plain-language summary doubled in the last 6 years. From a total of 34,444 reports indexed on PEDro, only 4421 reports had English plain-language summaries. RCTs with plain-language summaries had higher PEDro scores than RCTs without plain-language summaries (mean difference=0.8 points, 95%CI 0.7 to 0.8). Only 2% of reports were considered at a suitable reading level by the FKGL formula and 0.1% by the FRES formula.
Although the publication of plain-language summaries is increasing over time, the current number corresponds to only 13% of all published reports. In addition the majority of plain-language summaries are written at an advanced reading level.

OBJECTIVE: Following the findings of the National Lung Screening Trial, several national societies from multiple disciplines have endorsed the use of low-dose chest CT to screen for lung cancer. Online patient education materials are an important tool to disseminate information to the general public regarding the proven health benefits of lung cancer screening. This study aims to evaluate the reading level at which these materials related to lung cancer screening are written.
METHODS: The four terms \"pulmonary nodule,\" \"radiation,\" \"low-dose CT,\" and \"lung cancer screening\" were searched on Google, and the first 20 online resources for each term were downloaded, converted into plain text, and analyzed using 10 well-established readability scales. If the websites were not written specifically for patients, they were excluded.
RESULTS: The 80 articles were written at a 12.6 ± 2.7 (mean ± SD) grade level, with grade levels ranging from 4.0 to 19.0. Of the 80 articles, 62.5% required a high school education to comprehend, and 22.6% required a college degree or higher (≥ 16th grade) to comprehend. Only 2.5% of the analyzed articles adhered to the recommendations of the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association that patient education materials be written at a 3rd- to 7th-grade reading level.
CONCLUSIONS: Commonly visited online lung cancer screening-related patient education materials are written at a level beyond the general patient population\'s ability to comprehend and may be contributing to a knowledge gap that is inhibiting patients from improving their health literacy.

Cancer information is of critical interest to the public. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) offers a series of comprehensive patient guidelines on the management of the most common cancer diagnoses. This study was aimed at assessing the health literacy demands of NCCN patient guidelines for the most common malignancies in the United States.
The American Cancer Society\'s most common malignancies by annual incidence in the United States and their corresponding NCCN patient guidelines were identified. Four validated tools were used to evaluate literacy levels: 1) the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, 2) the Peter Mosenthal and Irwin Kirsch readability formula (PMOSE/IKIRSCH), 3) the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), and 4) the Clear Communication Index from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The average reading grade level was 10.3, which was higher than the recommended 6th-grade level. The average PMOSE/IKIRSCH score was 11; this corresponded to moderate complexity and required some college-level education for interpretation. Only 1 tool, the PEMAT, yielded scores above the benchmarks for high-quality materials. The PEMAT\'s understandability, actionability, and overall scores were 94%, 83%, and 91%, respectively. The average CDC index was 85%, which was below the recommended 90% for an appropriate health literacy demand.
Overall, the assessment indicates high demand scores for the readability and complexity of the NCCN patient guidelines and thus that the materials are not quite suitable for the general US adult population. Further input from patient focus groups to address appropriateness and usefulness is critical. Cancer 2018;124:769-74. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

OBJECTIVE: Ongoing controversy regarding screening mammography guidelines has created confusion for many patients. Given recommendations that patient educational material be prepared at or below the 7th grade reading level of average Americans, the purpose of this study was to assess the readability of online mammography information offered by hospitals nationwide.
METHODS: During 2015, online mammography patient educational materials were identified for all Medicare-recognized hospitals nationwide for which screening mammography metrics were publicly available. Patient educational materials were assessed using six validated readability score algorithms. All references to official screening guidelines were captured.
RESULTS: Of 4105 hospitals nationwide, 3252 had websites and confirmable screening mammography services. Of those, 1753 (54%) offered mammography information material online. Only 919 (28%) referenced any professional society guidelines. After excluding information not formatted in HTML and shorter than 100 words (to improve algorithm reliability), 1524 hospital mammography webpages were assessed for grade level scores. Nationally, the mean of each readability score for all hospitals varied between the 10th and 14th grade levels, all higher than the recommended 7th grade level (p < 0.001). At the individual hospital level, only 14 hospitals (0.4%) had mean scores at or below the 7th grade level.
CONCLUSIONS: Of U.S. hospitals that offer screening mammography and have websites, only 54% provide online mammography educational material. Of those, only 0.4% present information at a reading level comprehensible to average Americans, and only 28% offer specific information to help patients reconcile conflicting guidelines. Health systems offering mammography should strive to better meet women\'s health information and literacy needs.