Readability of urologic pathology reports: The need for patient-centered approaches

Abstract Introduction The pathology report informs a patient׳s prognosis and treatment options. However, pathology reports are written using complex medical vocabulary. We evaluated the readability of pathology reports for common urologic cancers (prostate, bladder kidney, and testicular) to identif...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urologic oncology 2014-11, Vol.32 (8), p.1091-1094
Hauptverfasser: Mossanen, Matthew, M.D, Calvert, Joshua K., B.S., M.P.H, Wright, Jonathan L., M.D., M.S, True, Lawrence D., M.D, Lin, Daniel W., M.D, Gore, John L., M.D., M.S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1094
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1091
container_title Urologic oncology
container_volume 32
creator Mossanen, Matthew, M.D
Calvert, Joshua K., B.S., M.P.H
Wright, Jonathan L., M.D., M.S
True, Lawrence D., M.D
Lin, Daniel W., M.D
Gore, John L., M.D., M.S
description Abstract Introduction The pathology report informs a patient׳s prognosis and treatment options. However, pathology reports are written using complex medical vocabulary. We evaluated the readability of pathology reports for common urologic cancers (prostate, bladder kidney, and testicular) to identify sources of confusion that could be addressed through modified patient-centered pathology reports. Methods Pathology reports from 5 cases of each of the following procedures were analyzed: partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, radical prostatectomy, ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (PNBx), radical cystectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, radical orchiectomy, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Reports were edited for grammar and syntax, and the Flesch-Kincaid readability software calculated the reading level. Modifications were performed to identify sources of obstruction to readability. We compared modified and base reports using independent samples t tests. Results Bladder cancer pathology had the highest readability index; radical prostatectomy and PNBx pathology reports had the lowest average readability indices. Modified reports that both omitted gross pathologic and immunohistochemistry content and also replaced oncologic and histology terms with lay terminology had significantly lower reading levels than base reports ( P
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.011
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1635005353</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1078143914001537</els_id><sourcerecordid>1635005353</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-547bd3aa132e6bfd1a9d37fbe2490e573b2f317a344eac679c7926669dd98a03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUcFO3DAUtCpQobSfUJQjl2z9YsdOOIAQagEJCQn2bjn2S9dLNg52grR_j9NdOPSC9GQ_2fNm7BlCfgJdAAXxa72Ygu98bxYFBb6gqQC-kGOoJMsLXouD1FNZ5cBZfUS-xbimCVgBfCVHBa-4YJwdk6dH1FY3rnPjNvNt9o_0rzPZoMfV3G6zgIMPYzzPlivMekSbtT7M9w77MTdpwZAO9TAEr80K43dy2Oou4o_9fkKWf34vr2_z-4ebu-ur-9zwgo55yWVjmdbAChRNa0HXlsm2wfR6iqVkTdEykJpxjtoIWRtZF0KI2tq60pSdkLMdbdJ9mTCOauOiwa7TPfopKhCspLRkJUvQcgc1wccYsFVDcBsdtgqomu1Ua7W3U812KpoKIM2d7iWmZoP2Y-rdvwS43AEw_fPVYVDRJFsMWhfQjMp696nExX8MpnO9M7p7xi3GtZ9Cn0xUoGKhqHqaM50jBZ7iLJlkbyOnnqE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1635005353</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Readability of urologic pathology reports: The need for patient-centered approaches</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Mossanen, Matthew, M.D ; Calvert, Joshua K., B.S., M.P.H ; Wright, Jonathan L., M.D., M.S ; True, Lawrence D., M.D ; Lin, Daniel W., M.D ; Gore, John L., M.D., M.S</creator><creatorcontrib>Mossanen, Matthew, M.D ; Calvert, Joshua K., B.S., M.P.H ; Wright, Jonathan L., M.D., M.S ; True, Lawrence D., M.D ; Lin, Daniel W., M.D ; Gore, John L., M.D., M.S</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Introduction The pathology report informs a patient׳s prognosis and treatment options. However, pathology reports are written using complex medical vocabulary. We evaluated the readability of pathology reports for common urologic cancers (prostate, bladder kidney, and testicular) to identify sources of confusion that could be addressed through modified patient-centered pathology reports. Methods Pathology reports from 5 cases of each of the following procedures were analyzed: partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, radical prostatectomy, ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (PNBx), radical cystectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, radical orchiectomy, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Reports were edited for grammar and syntax, and the Flesch-Kincaid readability software calculated the reading level. Modifications were performed to identify sources of obstruction to readability. We compared modified and base reports using independent samples t tests. Results Bladder cancer pathology had the highest readability index; radical prostatectomy and PNBx pathology reports had the lowest average readability indices. Modified reports that both omitted gross pathologic and immunohistochemistry content and also replaced oncologic and histology terms with lay terminology had significantly lower reading levels than base reports ( P &lt;0.05 for radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, and radical orchiectomy). Modified reports did not significantly alter the reading level for radical cystectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, PNBx, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection reports. Conclusions Pathology reports are written at reading levels above the average reading capability of most Americans. Deleting descriptive pathologic terms and replacing complex medical terminology with lay terms resulted in improved readability for some urologic oncology reports but complicated readability for others. Our findings may guide the development of patient-centered pathology reports.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1078-1439</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2496</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24846343</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Health literacy ; Humans ; Pathology report ; Patient-Centered Care - methods ; Patient-centered outcomes research ; Prognosis ; Readability ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Urologic Neoplasms - pathology ; Urologic Neoplasms - surgery ; Urology ; Urology - methods</subject><ispartof>Urologic oncology, 2014-11, Vol.32 (8), p.1091-1094</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2014 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-547bd3aa132e6bfd1a9d37fbe2490e573b2f317a344eac679c7926669dd98a03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-547bd3aa132e6bfd1a9d37fbe2490e573b2f317a344eac679c7926669dd98a03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.011$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24846343$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mossanen, Matthew, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calvert, Joshua K., B.S., M.P.H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wright, Jonathan L., M.D., M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>True, Lawrence D., M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Daniel W., M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gore, John L., M.D., M.S</creatorcontrib><title>Readability of urologic pathology reports: The need for patient-centered approaches</title><title>Urologic oncology</title><addtitle>Urol Oncol</addtitle><description>Abstract Introduction The pathology report informs a patient׳s prognosis and treatment options. However, pathology reports are written using complex medical vocabulary. We evaluated the readability of pathology reports for common urologic cancers (prostate, bladder kidney, and testicular) to identify sources of confusion that could be addressed through modified patient-centered pathology reports. Methods Pathology reports from 5 cases of each of the following procedures were analyzed: partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, radical prostatectomy, ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (PNBx), radical cystectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, radical orchiectomy, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Reports were edited for grammar and syntax, and the Flesch-Kincaid readability software calculated the reading level. Modifications were performed to identify sources of obstruction to readability. We compared modified and base reports using independent samples t tests. Results Bladder cancer pathology had the highest readability index; radical prostatectomy and PNBx pathology reports had the lowest average readability indices. Modified reports that both omitted gross pathologic and immunohistochemistry content and also replaced oncologic and histology terms with lay terminology had significantly lower reading levels than base reports ( P &lt;0.05 for radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, and radical orchiectomy). Modified reports did not significantly alter the reading level for radical cystectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, PNBx, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection reports. Conclusions Pathology reports are written at reading levels above the average reading capability of most Americans. Deleting descriptive pathologic terms and replacing complex medical terminology with lay terms resulted in improved readability for some urologic oncology reports but complicated readability for others. Our findings may guide the development of patient-centered pathology reports.</description><subject>Health literacy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Pathology report</subject><subject>Patient-Centered Care - methods</subject><subject>Patient-centered outcomes research</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Readability</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Urologic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Urologic Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Urology</subject><subject>Urology - methods</subject><issn>1078-1439</issn><issn>1873-2496</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUcFO3DAUtCpQobSfUJQjl2z9YsdOOIAQagEJCQn2bjn2S9dLNg52grR_j9NdOPSC9GQ_2fNm7BlCfgJdAAXxa72Ygu98bxYFBb6gqQC-kGOoJMsLXouD1FNZ5cBZfUS-xbimCVgBfCVHBa-4YJwdk6dH1FY3rnPjNvNt9o_0rzPZoMfV3G6zgIMPYzzPlivMekSbtT7M9w77MTdpwZAO9TAEr80K43dy2Oou4o_9fkKWf34vr2_z-4ebu-ur-9zwgo55yWVjmdbAChRNa0HXlsm2wfR6iqVkTdEykJpxjtoIWRtZF0KI2tq60pSdkLMdbdJ9mTCOauOiwa7TPfopKhCspLRkJUvQcgc1wccYsFVDcBsdtgqomu1Ua7W3U812KpoKIM2d7iWmZoP2Y-rdvwS43AEw_fPVYVDRJFsMWhfQjMp696nExX8MpnO9M7p7xi3GtZ9Cn0xUoGKhqHqaM50jBZ7iLJlkbyOnnqE</recordid><startdate>20141101</startdate><enddate>20141101</enddate><creator>Mossanen, Matthew, M.D</creator><creator>Calvert, Joshua K., B.S., M.P.H</creator><creator>Wright, Jonathan L., M.D., M.S</creator><creator>True, Lawrence D., M.D</creator><creator>Lin, Daniel W., M.D</creator><creator>Gore, John L., M.D., M.S</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141101</creationdate><title>Readability of urologic pathology reports: The need for patient-centered approaches</title><author>Mossanen, Matthew, M.D ; Calvert, Joshua K., B.S., M.P.H ; Wright, Jonathan L., M.D., M.S ; True, Lawrence D., M.D ; Lin, Daniel W., M.D ; Gore, John L., M.D., M.S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-547bd3aa132e6bfd1a9d37fbe2490e573b2f317a344eac679c7926669dd98a03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Health literacy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Pathology report</topic><topic>Patient-Centered Care - methods</topic><topic>Patient-centered outcomes research</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Readability</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Urologic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Urologic Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Urology</topic><topic>Urology - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mossanen, Matthew, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calvert, Joshua K., B.S., M.P.H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wright, Jonathan L., M.D., M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>True, Lawrence D., M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Daniel W., M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gore, John L., M.D., M.S</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Urologic oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mossanen, Matthew, M.D</au><au>Calvert, Joshua K., B.S., M.P.H</au><au>Wright, Jonathan L., M.D., M.S</au><au>True, Lawrence D., M.D</au><au>Lin, Daniel W., M.D</au><au>Gore, John L., M.D., M.S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Readability of urologic pathology reports: The need for patient-centered approaches</atitle><jtitle>Urologic oncology</jtitle><addtitle>Urol Oncol</addtitle><date>2014-11-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1091</spage><epage>1094</epage><pages>1091-1094</pages><issn>1078-1439</issn><eissn>1873-2496</eissn><abstract>Abstract Introduction The pathology report informs a patient׳s prognosis and treatment options. However, pathology reports are written using complex medical vocabulary. We evaluated the readability of pathology reports for common urologic cancers (prostate, bladder kidney, and testicular) to identify sources of confusion that could be addressed through modified patient-centered pathology reports. Methods Pathology reports from 5 cases of each of the following procedures were analyzed: partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, radical prostatectomy, ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (PNBx), radical cystectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, radical orchiectomy, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Reports were edited for grammar and syntax, and the Flesch-Kincaid readability software calculated the reading level. Modifications were performed to identify sources of obstruction to readability. We compared modified and base reports using independent samples t tests. Results Bladder cancer pathology had the highest readability index; radical prostatectomy and PNBx pathology reports had the lowest average readability indices. Modified reports that both omitted gross pathologic and immunohistochemistry content and also replaced oncologic and histology terms with lay terminology had significantly lower reading levels than base reports ( P &lt;0.05 for radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, and radical orchiectomy). Modified reports did not significantly alter the reading level for radical cystectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, PNBx, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection reports. Conclusions Pathology reports are written at reading levels above the average reading capability of most Americans. Deleting descriptive pathologic terms and replacing complex medical terminology with lay terms resulted in improved readability for some urologic oncology reports but complicated readability for others. Our findings may guide the development of patient-centered pathology reports.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>24846343</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.011</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1078-1439
ispartof Urologic oncology, 2014-11, Vol.32 (8), p.1091-1094
issn 1078-1439
1873-2496
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1635005353
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Health literacy
Humans
Pathology report
Patient-Centered Care - methods
Patient-centered outcomes research
Prognosis
Readability
Surveys and Questionnaires
Urologic Neoplasms - pathology
Urologic Neoplasms - surgery
Urology
Urology - methods
title Readability of urologic pathology reports: The need for patient-centered approaches
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T08%3A09%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Readability%20of%20urologic%20pathology%20reports:%20The%20need%20for%20patient-centered%20approaches&rft.jtitle=Urologic%20oncology&rft.au=Mossanen,%20Matthew,%20M.D&rft.date=2014-11-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1091&rft.epage=1094&rft.pages=1091-1094&rft.issn=1078-1439&rft.eissn=1873-2496&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1635005353%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1635005353&rft_id=info:pmid/24846343&rft_els_id=S1078143914001537&rfr_iscdi=true