Skip to main content
Download PDF

Correction to: Understanding Plain English Summaries: A Comparison of two Approaches to Improve the Quality of Plain English Summaries in Research

Research Involvement and Engagement volume 3, Article number: 32 (2017) Cite this article

  • The original article was published in Research Involvement and Engagement 2017 3:17

Correction

After publication of our article [1] it has come to our attention that Fig. 3 was accidentally omitted. In the section “Ease of reading”, the sentence “FRE scores were recorded for the original, author-revised and independently edited PES (Fig. 2).” should read “FRE scores were recorded for the original, author-revised and independently edited PES (Fig. 3).” Figure 3 and its legend appear below.

Fig. 3
figure1

FRE score for summaries compared across three groups. Horizontal dashed line indicates an FRE of 50, which is approximately equivalent to a broadsheet newspaper [27]

Full size image

Reference

  1. 1.

    Kirkpatrick E, Gaisford W, Williams E, et al. Understanding Plain English Summaries: A Comparison of two Approaches to Improve the Quality of Plain English Summaries in Research. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017. 2017;3(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0064-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Emma Kirkpatrick

  2. Southampton Health Technology Assessment Centre (SHTAC), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Wendy Gaisford

  3. National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Elaine Williams, Elizabeth Brindley, Doreen Tembo & David Wright

Authors
  1. Emma Kirkpatrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wendy Gaisford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elaine Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth Brindley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Doreen Tembo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emma Kirkpatrick.

Additional information

The original article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0064-0.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kirkpatrick, E., Gaisford, W., Williams, E. et al. Correction to: Understanding Plain English Summaries: A Comparison of two Approaches to Improve the Quality of Plain English Summaries in Research. Res Involv Engagem 3, 32 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0082-y

Download citation

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

Contact us