A systematic review and meta-analysis of English language online patient education materials in breast cancer: Is readability the only story?

BACKGROUND: Online patient education materials (OPEMs) are an increasingly popular resource for women seeking information about breast cancer. The AMA recommends written patient material to be at or below a 6th grade level to meet the general public's health literacy. Metrics such as quality, understandability, and actionability also heavily influence the usability of health information, and thus should be evaluated alongside readability. PURPOSE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine: 1) Average readability scores and reporting methodologies of breast cancer readability studies; and 2) Inclusion frequency of additional health literacy-associated metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A registered systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase.com, CENTRAL via Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov in June 2022 in adherence with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Eligible studies performed readability analyses on English-language breast cancer-related OPEMs. Study characteristics, readability data, and reporting of non-readability health literacy metrics were extracted. Meta-analysis estimates were derived from generalized linear mixed modeling. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 30 studies yielding 4462 OPEMs. Overall, average readability was 11.81 (95% CI [11.14, 12.49]), with a significant difference (p < 0.001) when grouped by OPEM categories. Commercial organizations had the highest average readability at 12.2 [11.3,13.0]; non-profit organizations had one of the lowest at 11.3 [10.6,12.0]. Readability also varied by index, with New Fog, Lexile, and FORCAST having the lowest average scores (9.4 [8.6, 10.3], 10.4 [10.0, 10.8], and 10.7 [10.2, 11.1], respectively). Only 57% of studies calculated average readability with more than two indices. Only 60% of studies assessed other OPEM metrics associated with health literacy. CONCLUSION: Average readability of breast cancer OPEMs is nearly double the AMA's recommended 6th grade level. Readability and other health literacy-associated metrics are inconsistently reported in the current literature. Standardization of future readability studies, with a focus on holistic evaluation of patient materials, may aid shared decision-making and be critical to increased screening rates and breast cancer awareness.

Urothelial Carcinoma: Epidemiology and Imaging-Based Review.

Bladder cancer is the 6th most common malignancy in the United States, with urothelial carcinomas comprising over 95% of cases of bladder cancer, and commands a significant disease burden in Rhode Island. Imaging studies can provide valuable diagnostic information for urothelial carcinomas at initial presentation and are routinely used for noninvasive staging, treatment response monitoring, and post-treatment surveillance. This review aims to discuss and highlight three imaging modalities: ultrasonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, with particular focus on the notable features and appearance of urothelial carcinoma on each modality and their relative utility throughout the disease course. A general overview of disease epidemiology and treatment practices is also provided.

ACR Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Before Change in US Preventative Services Taskforce Eligibility Criteria: 2014 to 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To review Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) scores from 2014 to 2021, before changes in eligibility criteria proposed by the US Preventative Services Taskforce. METHODS: A registered systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines; eligible studies examined low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening at institutions in the United States and reported Lung-RADS from 2014 to 2021. Patient and study characteristics, including age, gender, smoking status, pack-years, screening timeline, number of individual patients, number of unique studies, Lung-RADS scores, and positive predictive value (PPV) were extracted. Meta-analysis estimates were derived from generalized linear mixed modeling. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 24 studies yielding 36,211 LDCT examinations for 32,817 patient encounters. The meta-analysis Lung-RADS 1-2 scores were lower than anticipated by ACR guidelines, at 84.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.3-85.6) versus 90% respectively (P < .001). Lung-RADS 3 and 4 scores were both higher than anticipated by the ACR, at 8.7% (95% CI 7.6-10.1) and 6.5% (95% CI 5.707.4), compared with 5% and 4%, respectively (P < .001). The ACR's minimum estimate of PPV for Lung-RADS 3 to 4 is 21% or higher; we observed a rate of 13.1% (95% CI 10.1-16.8). However, our estimated PPV rate for Lung-RADS 4 was 28.6% (95% CI 21.6-36.8). CONCLUSION: Lung-RADS scores and PPV rates in the literature are not aligned with the ACR's own estimates, suggesting that perhaps Lung-RADS categorization needs to be reexamined for better concordance with real-world screening populations. In addition to serving as a benchmark before screening guideline broadening, this study provides guidance for future reporting of lung cancer screening and Lung-RADS data.