ArticleCurrent urology2019
Readability Assessment of Commonly Used German Urological Questionnaires.
Article in Current urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Readability of patient information leaflets for commonly used medicines in the UK, Germany and Türkiye: a cross-sectional document analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- An assessment of the quality and readability level of online content on urinary tract infection treatment in Spanish and English.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
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
purposeWe intended to assess the readability of the German versions of commonly used urological questionnaires and identify questions that are potentially demanding for patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe Guidelines of the European Association of Urology were analyzed for recommended questionnaires. Readability of the German versions of these questionnaires including their respective single-items was analyzed using established readability assessment tools.
resultsA total of 13 questionnaires were analyzed. The calculated readability scores ranged between the 4.3th and 10.3th grade level. Easiest readability as calculated by median grade levels was found for the short and long forms of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaires-Female and -Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and the SF-Qualiveen (all median grade level 5.0). The short form of the International Index of Erectile Function showed the hardest readability (median grade level 10.0). Readability of the single-items varied widely between the assessed questionnaires with up to 80% (the International Index of Erectile Function) of their single-items being written above recommended grade levels.
conclusionsThe majority of commonly used German urological questionnaires comply with recommended readability levels. Some questionnaires as well as single-items of most of the questionnaires clearly exceed recommended readability levels. This should be considered for interpretation of their results and when revising questionnaires.
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.