Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28138915›Full record

ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2017

Evaluation of internet-based patient education materials from internal medicine subspecialty organizations: will patients understand them?

David R Hansberry, Nitin Agarwal, Elizabeth S John, Ann M John, Prateek Agarwal, James C Reynolds, Stephen R Baker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Improving Patient Understanding and Outcomes in Lung Cancer Using an Animated Patient's Guide with Visual Formats of Learning.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Internet: Sleep On It.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2018
    Article
  9. When in Rome, don't do as the Romans do.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

David R HansberryDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, 132 South 10th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. hansbedr@gmail.com.
Nitin AgarwalDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Elizabeth S JohnDepartment of Medicine, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, FL, USA.
Ann M JohnDepartment of Medicine, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA.
Prateek AgarwalPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
James C ReynoldsDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Stephen R BakerDepartment of Radiology, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The majority of Americans use the Internet daily, if not more often, and many search online for health information to better understand a diagnosis they have been given or to research treatment options. The average American reads at an eighth-grade level. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the readability of online patient education materials on the websites of 14 professional organizations representing the major internal medicine subspecialties. We used ten well-established quantitative readability scales to assess written text from patient education materials published on the websites of the major professional organizations representing the following subspecialty groups: allergy and immunology, cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, hematology, hospice and palliative care, infectious disease, nephrology, oncology, pulmonology and critical care, rheumatology, sleep medicine, and sports medicine. Collectively the 540 articles analyzed were written at an 11th-grade level (SD 1.4 grade levels). The sleep medicine and nephrology websites had the most readable materials, written at an academic grade level of 8.5 ± 1.5 and 9.0 ± 0.2, respectively. Material at the infectious disease site was written at the most difficult level, with average readability corresponding to grades 13.9 ± 0.3. None of the patient education materials we reviewed conformed to the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines requiring that patient education articles be written at a third- to seventh-grade reading level. If these online resources were rewritten, it is likely that more patients would derive benefit from reading them.

Indexed as

ComprehensionGuideline AdherenceHumansInternal MedicineInternetLiteracyPatient Education as TopicUnited StatesInternal medicineInternetLiteracyPatient educationReadability

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.