ArticleAmerican journal of men's health2017
How Readable Is BPH Treatment Information on the Internet? Assessing Barriers to Literacy in Prostate Health.
Article in American journal of men's health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Empowering patient choice: a systematic review of decision aids for benign prostatic hyperplasia.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- The Readability of Patient-Facing Information in Public Reporting System: Cross-Sectional Evaluation of the City of Helsinki Website.Online journal of public health informatics · 2026Article
- Readability analysis of ChatGPT's responses on lung cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Online Health Information for Penile Prosthesis Implants Lacks Quality and Is Unreadable to the Average US Patient.Cureus · 2023Article
- Evolutionary Overview of Consumer Health Informatics: Bibliometric Study on the Web of Science from 1999 to 2019.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- Evidence-based analysis of online consumer information about prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2021Article
- Patients' perspective on prostatic artery embolization: A qualitative study.SAGE open medicine · 2021Article
- Health websites on COVID-19: are they readable and credible enough to help public self-care?Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Bladder Cancer Health Literacy: Assessing Readability of Online Patient Education Materials.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Value-based care for the treatment and evaluation of benign prostatic hyperplasia: an analysis of a metropolitan service area claims database.World journal of urology · 2020Article
- Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires.Investigative and clinical urology · 2018Article
- Readability assessment of online patient education materials provided by the European Association of Urology.International urology and nephrology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Information about benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has become increasingly accessible on the Internet. Though the ability to find such material is encouraging, its readability and impact on informing patient decision making are not known. To evaluate the readability of Internet-based information about BPH in the context of website ownership and Health on the Net certification, three search engines were queried daily for 1 month with BPH-related keywords. Website ownership data and Health on the Net certification status were verified. Three readability analyses were performed: SMOG test, Dale-Chall readability formula, and Fry readability graph. An adjusted SMOG calculation was performed to reduce overestimation from medical jargon. After a total of 270 searches, 52 websites met inclusion criteria. Mean SMOG grade was 10.6 ( SD = 1.4) and 10.2 after adjustment. Mean Dale-Chall score was 9.1 ( SD = 0.6), or Grades 13 to 15. Mean Fry graph coordinates (173 syllables, 5.1 sentences) corresponded to Grade 15. Seven sites (13%) were at or below the average adult reading level based on SMOG; none of the sites qualified based on the other tests. Readability was significantly poorer for academic versus commercial sites and for Health on the Net-certified versus noncertified sites. In conclusion, online information about BPH treatment markedly exceeds the reading comprehension of most U.S. adults. Websites maintained by academic institutions and certified by the Health on the Net standard have more difficult readability. Efforts to improve literacy with respect to urological health should target content readability independent of reliability.
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.