ArticleThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2011
Readability of Patient-oriented Online Dermatology Resources.
Article in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2016Pooled it
- Readability of patient education materials available at the point of care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2012Trial
- An infodemiological analysis of arabic online educational content on low back pain: Insights into quality and reliability.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the artificial intelligence chatbots in frequently asked questions about retinitis pigmentosa: a comparative analysis between ChatGPT-4 and Gemini-2.0.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- Analyzing Social Media Trends in Cosmeceuticals: Insights From Google Trends and TikTok Analytics.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Popular Treatments of Psoriasis on Social Media: Google Trends Analysis.JMIR dermatology · 2025Article
- Assessing the Application of Large Language Models in Generating Dermatologic Patient Education Materials According to Reading Level: Qualitative Study.JMIR dermatology · 2024Article
- Quality of ChatGPT Responses to Frequently Asked Questions in Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Assessing online patient education materials in dermatology: a call to action.Archives of dermatological research · 2023Article
- Readability and topics of the German Health Web: Exploratory study and text analysis.PloS one · 2023Article
- Readability of English, German, and Russian Disease-Related Wikipedia Pages: Automated Computational Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Evaluating breast cancer websites targeting Arabic speakers: empirical investigation of popularity, availability, accessibility, readability, and quality.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Readability of online Spanish patient education materials in dermatology.Archives of dermatological research · 2021Article
- Quality and readability of English-language Internet information for vestibular disorders.Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation · 2020Article
- Readability of Wikipedia Pages on Autoimmune Disorders: Systematic Quantitative Assessment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
- Going beyond the concept of readability to improve comprehension of patient education materials.Internal and emergency medicine · 2017Article
- [Comprehensibility of online-based patient education material in ophthalmology].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2017Article
- Readability Assessment of Online Patient Education Material on Congestive Heart Failure.Advances in preventive medicine · 2017Article
- Assessment of Online Patient Education Materials from Major Dermatologic Associations.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2016Article
- Patient information in Graves' disease and thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy: readability assessment of online resources.Thyroid : official journal of the American Thyroid Association · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSupplemental educational reading material is of no value to patients if it is not read and comprehended.
objectiveUsing standardized research tools, online patient education materials were comparatively assessed for readability and length in words to identify the strengths and weaknesses of widely utilized sources.
methodsThree sources of patient-education material on the internet (WebMD.com, Wikipedia.org, and MedicineOnline.com) were compared with materials produced by the American Academy of Dermatology for readability utilizing Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease Scale. Automated word counts were used to determine the length of each educational piece.
resultsThe information presented in American Academy of Dermatology electronic pamphlets on the internet is significantly harder to comprehend than MedicineOnline.com, but easier than Wikipedia.org. The latter site proved significantly harder to comprehend than all other sources. The American Academy of Dermatology electronic pamphlets and MedicineOnline.com materials were the most concise, averaging 1,200 words or less, although this was not a statistically significant difference in length compared to other online patient-education resources. No single source of online patient-education material demonstrates optimal features with regard to each of these parameters. LIMITATIONS: Only 15 topic areas in the four most commonly accessed sources of patient information were analyzed in this study.
conclusionNo single source of commonly used internet patient-education material demonstrates optimal features with regard to readability, length, and presence of photographic illustrations. These educational materials should target a length of 1,200 words, be illustrated with clinical images, and readability should correspond with the national average reading level.
Identifiers
21464884PMC3070466W31996516What 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.