SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2016
Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 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
61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Indigenous Eye Health in the Americas: The Burden of Vision Impairment and Ocular Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of a tailored leaflet to promote diabetic retinopathy screening among young adults with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Trial
- Comparative Analysis of Readability Levels of Hand Surgery Patient Information on the ASSH Website and Artificial Intelligence.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- A Structural Shift in the Readability of Ophthalmology Abstracts in Late 2023.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Patient accessibility within the OphthoEvidence framework.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Mapping the Reliability-Readability Gap in the Education of Patients With Age-Related Macular Degeneration Across 6 Large Language Models: Comparative Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- How well do we write for patients? Longitudinal analysis of the readability and complexity of 4.6 million ophthalmic clinical letters.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Evaluating Readability and Understandability of Patient-Reported Questionnaires for Bladder Pain Syndrome.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Comparing the readability of online patient education materials for LASIK and cataract surgery.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Expert and Patient Evaluation of an Education Tool for Breast Cancer Patients on Endocrine Therapy: Assessment of Usability, Knowledge and Medication Beliefs.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Evaluation of artificial language-adjusted readability on cataract surgery queries.Digital journal of ophthalmology : DJO · 2026Article
- Enhancing nutrition education resources through the development and refinement of a checklist using the suitability assessment of materials (SAM).Nutrition and health · 2026Article
- Complexity and Barriers to Vision Care: A Narrative Review Informed by a Mobile Eye Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- A review, evaluation and content mapping study of Australian patient-facing online pancreatobiliary cancer resources.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Review
- Readability of patient education materials on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
- Promoting Health Literacy With Human-in-the-Loop Video Understandability Classification of YouTube Videos: Development and Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- Readability of Patient Education Materials in Plastic Surgery: Assessing 14 Years of Progress.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- The Ability of Large Language Models to Generate Patient Information Materials for Retinopathy of Prematurity: Evaluation of Readability, Accuracy, and Comprehensiveness.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Readability of online and offline written health information: a protocol of a systematic review of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2024Article
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
backgroundPatient education materials should be written at a level that is understandable for patients with low health literacy. The aims of this study are (1) to review the literature on readability of ophthalmic patient education materials and (2) to evaluate and revise our institution's patient education materials about glaucoma using evidence-based guidelines on writing for patients with low health literacy.
methodsA systematic search was conducted on the PubMed/MEDLINE database for studies that have evaluated readability level of ophthalmic patient education materials, and the reported readability scores were assessed. Additionally, we collected evidence-based guidelines for writing easy-to-read patient education materials, and these recommendations were applied to revise 12 patient education handouts on various glaucoma topics at our institution. Readability measures, including Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and word count were calculated for the original and revised documents. The original and revised versions of the handouts were then scored in random order by two glaucoma specialists using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument, a grading scale used to evaluate suitability of health information materials for patients. Paired t test was used to analyze changes in readability measures, word count, and SAM score between original and revised handouts. Finally, five glaucoma patients were interviewed to discuss the revised materials, and patient feedback was analyzed qualitatively.
resultsOur literature search included 13 studies that evaluated a total of 950 educational materials. Among the mean FKGL readability scores reported in these studies, the median was 11 (representing an eleventh-grade reading level). At our institution, handouts' readability averaged a tenth-grade reading level (FKGL = 10.0 ± 1.6), but revising the handouts improved their readability to a sixth-grade reading level (FKGL = 6.4 ± 1.2) (p < 0.001). Additionally, the mean SAM score of our institution's handouts improved from 60 ± 7 % (adequate) for the original versions to 88 ± 4 % (superior) for the revised handouts (p < 0.001).
conclusionsOur systematic review of the literature reveals that ophthalmic patient education materials are consistently written at a level that is too high for many patients to understand. Our institution's experience suggests that applying guidelines on writing easy-to-understand material can improve the readability and suitability of educational materials for patients with low health literacy.
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.