ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2017
Readability assessment of online patient education materials provided by the European Association of Urology.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Patient events in German urology: trend towards hybrid formats?]Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Patient experiences and perceptions of kidney stone surgery: what lessons can be learned from TikTok?Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Shared decision-making in urology and female pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery.Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- Quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction.BJUI compass · 2021Article
- Developing and Establishing Content Validity of Vignettes for Health Care Education and Research.Western journal of nursing research · 2021Article
- Communications in the time of a pandemic: the readability of documents for public consumption.Australian and New Zealand journal of public health · 2021Article
- The use of the Gunning Fog Index to evaluate the readability of Polish and English drug leaflets in the context of Health Literacy challenges in Medical Linguistics: An exploratory study.Cardiology journal · 2021Article
- Improving Patient Education Materials: A Practical Algorithm from Development to Validation.Current urology · 2019Article
- Readability Assessment of Commonly Used German Urological Questionnaires.Current urology · 2019Article
- Comprehensive consent in urology using decision aids, leaflets, videos and newer technologies: empowering patient choice and shared decision-making.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
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
purposeTo assess the readability of the web-based patient education material provided by the European Association of Urology. MATERIALS AND
methodsEnglish patient education materials (PEM) as available in May 2017 were obtained from the EAU website. Each topic was analyzed separately using six well-established readability assessment tools, including Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), SMOG Grade Level (SMOG), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch Reading Ease Formula (FRE) and Fry Readability Graph (FRG).
resultsA total of 17 main topics were identified of which separate basic and in-depth information is provided for 14 topics. Calculation of grade levels (FKGL, SMOG, CLI, GFI) showed readability scores of 7th-13th grade for basic information, 8th-15th grade for in-depth information and 7th-15th grade for single PEM. Median FRE score was 54 points (range 45-65) for basic information and 56 points (41-64) for in-depth information. The FRG as a graphical assessment revealed only 13 valid results with an approximate 8th-17th grade level.
conclusionThe EAU provides carefully worked out PEM for 17 urological topics. Although improved readability compared to similar analyses was found, a simplification of certain chapters might be helpful to facilitate better patient understanding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28905177What 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.