On 2014 Dec 18, CREBP Journal Club commented:

The new plain language summary (PLS) evaluated was substantially revised from the current one in the Cochrane systematic review, although it maintained the narrative format. We would have preferred a three-arm RCT (new PLS format vs. revised current PLS vs. current PLS). The group discussed what proportion of correct responses is realistic for the public (or indeed health professionals) to attain? Also, how might people or health professionals be taught to assist their understanding of this format? More respondents exposed to the new PLS format strongly disagreed with the statement “The information is reliable" (Figure 4, pg. 8) and poses the question whether improving understanding of the quality of evidence paradoxically introduces a level of uncertainty. We also wondered whether the wording of questions may have introduced bias – for example, the question on the comprehension of the purpose of the summary (ie. “This summary is about the results of a large study”; Yes/No/I’m not sure) might be correctly interpreted as a single study or a systematic review and meta-analysis. The evaluation of ‘creative language’ used in standardised qualitative statements about treatment effects might also introduce bias. Despite carefully defining standardised qualitative statements in relation to distinct levels of evidence (eg. ‘will’=high level of evidence; ‘probably’=moderate level of evidence) they were combined on one occasion which was counter-intuitive (eg. “Probably will not decrease how long a cold lasts…”). See CREBP Journal Club Page for more

On 2014 Dec 18, CREBP Journal Club commented:

The new plain language summary (PLS) evaluated was substantially revised from the current one in the Cochrane systematic review, although it maintained the narrative format. We would have preferred a three-arm RCT (new PLS format vs. revised current PLS vs. current PLS). The group discussed what proportion of correct responses is realistic for the public (or indeed health professionals) to attain? Also, how might people or health professionals be taught to assist their understanding of this format? More respondents exposed to the new PLS format strongly disagreed with the statement “The information is reliable" (Figure 4, pg. 8) and poses the question whether improving understanding of the quality of evidence paradoxically introduces a level of uncertainty. We also wondered whether the wording of questions may have introduced bias – for example, the question on the comprehension of the purpose of the summary (ie. “This summary is about the results of a large study”; Yes/No/I’m not sure) might be correctly interpreted as a single study or a systematic review and meta-analysis. The evaluation of ‘creative language’ used in standardised qualitative statements about treatment effects might also introduce bias. Despite carefully defining standardised qualitative statements in relation to distinct levels of evidence (eg. ‘will’=high level of evidence; ‘probably’=moderate level of evidence) they were combined on one occasion which was counter-intuitive (eg. “Probably will not decrease how long a cold lasts…”). See CREBP Journal Club Page for more