Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27487960›Full record

SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2016

Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review.

Andrew M Williams, Kelly W Muir, Jullia A Rosdahl

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Indigenous Eye Health in the Americas: The Burden of Vision Impairment and Ocular Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Complexity and Barriers to Vision Care: A Narrative Review Informed by a Mobile Eye Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  14. 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 · 2025
    Review
  15. Readability of patient education materials on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrew M WilliamsMichigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
Kelly W MuirDuke University Department of Ophthalmology, Durham, NC, USA.
Jullia A RosdahlDuke University Department of Ophthalmology, Durham, NC, USA. jullia.rosdahl@duke.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ComprehensionGlaucomaHealth LiteracyReadingComputer-Assisted InstructionHumansInternetPamphletsPatient Education as Topic

Identifiers

PMID27487960
PMCPMC4973096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.