ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2009
Tools for assessing readability and quality of health-related Web sites.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Readability Study: A Randomised Trial of Health Information Written at Different Grade Reading Levels.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Trial
- Readability of Online Patient Educational Materials for Rosacea: Systematic Web Search and Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- An assessment of the quality and readability level of online content on urinary tract infection treatment in Spanish and English.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- AI-Driven Information for Relatives of Patients with Malignant Middle Cerebral Artery Infarction: A Preliminary Validation Study Using GPT-4o.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Congenital Hand Differences.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Assessment of Quality and Readability of Online Patient-Centered Arabic Web-Based Knowledge About Apicoectomy.Cureus · 2023Article
- Readability of online monkeypox patient education materials: Improved recognition of health literacy is needed for dissemination of infectious disease information.Infection, disease & health · 2023Article
- Comparison of Readability Scores for Written Health Information Across Formulas Using Automated vs Manual Measures.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Forecasting Erroneous Neural Machine Translation of Disease Symptoms: Development of Bayesian Probabilistic Classifiers for Cross-Lingual Health Translation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Detecting Symptom Errors in Neural Machine Translation of Patient Health Information on Depressive Disorders: Developing Interpretable Bayesian Machine Learning Classifiers.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- The quality of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease information resources for patients on the internet in Korea.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2021Article
- Web-Based Health Information Following the Renewal of the Cervical Screening Program in Australia: Evaluation of Readability, Understandability, and Credibility.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- A Tool That Assesses the Evidence, Transparency, and Usability of Online Health Information: Development and Reliability Assessment.JMIR aging · 2018Article
- eHealth Literacy and General Interest in Using Online Health Information: A Survey Among Patients with Dental Diseases.Online journal of public health informatics · 2018Article
- Parental Actionability of Educational Materials Regarding Laryngotracheal Reconstruction.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2017Article
- Online Health Information Regarding Male Infertility: An Evaluation of Readability, Suitability, and Quality.Interactive journal of medical research · 2016Article
- Third Molars on the Internet: A Guide for Assessing Information Quality and Readability.Interactive journal of medical research · 2015Article
- Patient education for carpal tunnel syndrome: analysis of readability.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2015Article
- Does googling for preconception care result in information consistent with international guidelines: a comparison of information found by Italian women of childbearing age and health professionals.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Article
- Literacy assessment of family health history tools for public health prevention.Public health genomics · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the Internet becoming a growing source of information on genetics, genetic counselors and other health-care providers may be called upon to guide their patients to appropriate material, which is written at a suitable reading level for the individual and contains quality information. Given that many health-related Web sites are written at a high school or higher reading level, without direction from a genetic counselor or health-care provider, many Internet users may currently be turning to health-related Web sites that they do not understand. Additionally, Internet users may not know how to evaluate the quality of information they find, which could lead to them access inaccurate or irrelevant information. To aid in the process of finding and designing Web sites that are appropriate for patients, the current article provides guidelines for assessing readability and quality of health-related content. Additionally, a demonstration of an assessment is provided. Finally, limitations of these assessments are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.