ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2017
[Comprehensibility of online-based patient education material in ophthalmology].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An evaluation of the efficacy of a supplemental computer-based tutorial to enhance the informed consent process for cataract surgery: an exploratory randomized clinical study.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Trial
- Surgical Care in Specialist Ophthalmology Departments: Structure and Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Content, Quality, and Readability of Patient Accessible Online Resources Regarding Cataracts.Seminars in ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Sign language instrument for assessing the knowledge of deaf people about Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2020Article
- Creation and validation of an educational video for deaf people about cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvestigations have shown that the internet as a source of information in medical issues is increasing in importance. For most patients information delivered or supported by hospitals and universities is considered to be the most reliable, however, the comprehensibility of available information is often considered to be wanting. Comprehensibility scores are formulae allowing a quantitative value for the readability of a document to be calculated.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess data by analyzing the comprehensibility of medical information published on the websites of departments for ophthalmology of German university hospitals. We investigated and analyzed medical information dealing with three eye diseases with potentially severe irreversible damage.
methodsThe websites of 32 departments for ophthalmology of German university hospitals were investigated. Information regarding cataracts, glaucoma and retinal detachment (amotio retinae) were identified and analyzed. All information was systematically analyzed regarding comprehensibility by using the analysis program Text-Lab ( http://www.text-lab.de ) by calculation of five readability scores: the Hohenheim comprehensibility index (HVI), the Amstad index, the simple measure of gobbledygook (G-SMOG) index, the Vienna non-fictional text formula (W-STX) and the readability index (LIX).
resultsIn 59 cases (61.46 %) useful text information from the homepage of the institutions could be detected and analyzed. On average the comprehensibility of the information was identified as being poor (HVI 7.91 ± 3.94, Amstad index 35.45 ± 11.85, Vienna formula 11.19 ± 1.93, G‑SMOG 9.77 ± 1.42 and the LIX 54.53 ± 6.67).
conclusionIn most of the cases patient information material was written far above the literacy level of the average population. It must be assumed that the presented information is difficult to read for the majority of the patients. A critical evaluation of accessible information material seems to be desirable and available texts should be amended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27613545What 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.