ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2018
Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Readability and Understandability of Patient-Reported Questionnaires for Bladder Pain Syndrome.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Readability of paediatric participant information leaflets in research studies.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Assessing the Understandability and Actionability of Education Materials for Agricultural Workers' Health.Journal of agromedicine · 2025Article
- Safety Data Sheets as a Hazard Communication Tool: An Assessment of Suitability and Readability.Safety and health at work · 2024Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-4 Performance in Answering Patients' Questions About the Management of Type 2 Diabetes.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2024Article
- Readability Analysis of Online Breast Cancer Surgery Patient Education Materials from National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers Compared with Top Internet Search Results.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Readability Assessment of Commonly Used German Urological Questionnaires.Current urology · 2019Article
- Analyzing the Readability of Facial Paralysis Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeArticle
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
Purpose: This study was performed to assess readability of the most commonly used questionnaires in urology including a separate analysis of their single-items to identify questions that might be especially demanding for patients. Materials and Methods: The guidelines of the European Association of Urology were screened for recommended questionnaires. Readability was analyzed for complete questionnaires as well as their single-items separately using well established readability assessment tools, including Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook grade level (SMOG), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Gunning-Fog Index, and the Flesch Reading Ease formula. Results: A total of 13 questionnaires were included to the analysis. Calculation of grade levels (FKGL, SMOG, CLI, FGI) showed readability scores of 2.7th to 16.7th grade. Easiest readability as calculated by median grade levels was found for the short form of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaires-Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms short form (FLUTS-SF) while the short form of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) showed the hardest readability. Based on the FKGL between 0% (FLUTS-SF) and 80% (IIEF-5) of the single-items were written above the recommended grade levels. Conclusions: The questionnaires that are used most frequently in urology mainly show a satisfactory overall readability. Inadequate readability levels were not only found for individual questionnaires but also for single-items of the majority of assessed questionnaires. This requires consideration for the interpretation of results and when developing novel health-related surveys.
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.