ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2017
Evaluation of internet-based patient education materials from internal medicine subspecialty organizations: will patients understand them?
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.
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.
- 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 · 2025Article
- Designing and validating a patient education model for cardiovascular patients: protocol for a multilevel mixed-method study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Improving patient understanding and outcomes in myelodysplastic syndromes - An animated patient guide to MDS with visual formats of learning.Leukemia research reports · 2022Article
- Patients' perspectives on the quality of online patient education materials: A qualitative study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Article
- Investigating Medical Student's Preferences for Internet-Based Healthcare Services: A Best-Worst Scaling Survey.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Evaluating the readability, understandability, and quality of online materials about chest pain in children.European journal of pediatrics · 2020Article
- Health Literacy Gaps in Online Resources for Cirrhotic Patients.Journal of current surgery · 2020Article
- The Internet: Sleep On It.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2018Article
- When in Rome, don't do as the Romans do.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Article
- Quantitative analysis of the level of readability of online emergency radiology-based patient education resources.Emergency radiology · 2018Article
- Going beyond the concept of readability to improve comprehension of patient education materials.Internal and emergency medicine · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
28138915What 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.