Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28374349›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2017

Readability of Orthopaedic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Is There a Fundamental Failure to Communicate?

Jorge L Perez, Zachary A Mosher, Shawna L Watson, Evan D Sheppard, Eugene W Brabston, Gerald McGwin, Brent A Ponce

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information systems (PROMIS®) physical function and its derivative measures in adults: a systematic review of content validity.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [20% dissatisfied patients-Is this still true?]Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Readability of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Used in Plastic Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024
    Article
  7. CalculatingGlobal spine journal · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Operative Intervention Does Not Change Pain Perception in Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulcers.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jorge L PerezDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1313 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35205, USA.
Zachary A MosherDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1313 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35205, USA.
Shawna L WatsonDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1313 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35205, USA.
Evan D SheppardDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1313 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35205, USA.
Eugene W BrabstonDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1313 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35205, USA.
Gerald McGwinDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1313 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35205, USA.
Brent A PonceDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1313 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35205, USA. bponce@uabmc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to quantify patients' perceptions of functional ability. The American Medical Association and NIH suggest patient materials be written at or below 6th to 8th grade reading levels, respectively, yet one recent study asserts that few PROMs comply with these recommendations, and suggests that the majority of PROMs are written at too high of a reading level for self-administered patient use. Notably, this study was limited in its use of only one readability algorithm, although there is no commonly accepted, standard readability algorithm for healthcare-related materials. Our study, using multiple readability equations and heeding equal weight to each, hopes to yield a broader, all-encompassing estimate of readability, thereby offering a more accurate assessment of the readability of orthopaedic PROMS. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of orthopaedic-related PROMs and orthopaedic-related portions of the NIH Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS

methodsEighty-six (86) independent, orthopaedic and general wellness PROMs, drawn from commonly referenced orthopaedic websites and prior studies, were chosen for analysis. Additionally, owing to their increasing use in orthopaedics, four relevant short forms, and 11 adult, physical health question banks from the PROMIS

resultsThe majority of the independent PROMs (64 of 86; 74%) were written at or below the 6th grade level, with 81 of 86 (94%) written at or below the 8th grade level. All item banks (11 of 11) and short forms (four of four) of the PROMIS

conclusionsPatient literacy has great influence on healthcare outcomes, and readability is an important consideration in all patient-directed written materials. Our study found that more than 70% of PROMs commonly used in orthopaedics, and all orthopaedic-related portions of the PROMIS CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Fears of widely incomprehensible PROMs may be unfounded. Future research to identify the most appropriate readability algorithm for use in the healthcare sector, and revalidation of PROMs after readability-improving edits is warranted.

Indexed as

ComprehensionOrthopedicsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresReadingAdultAlgorithmsHealth LiteracyHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID28374349
PMCPMC5498383

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.