ArticleEpilepsia2020
Quantitative readability analysis of websites providing information on traumatic brain injury and epilepsy: A need for clear communication.
Article in Epilepsia, 2020. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Cloudy or Clear? Readability and Content Analysis of Patient Education Materials in Myasthenia Gravis.Muscle & nerve · 2026Article
- Assessing the Quality, Readability, and Acceptability of AI-Generated Information in Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Readability and content gaps in online epilepsy surgery materials as potential health literacy and shared-decision-making barriers.Epilepsia open · 2023Article
- Evaluating a Public Health Information Service According to Users' Socioeconomic Position and Health Status: Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe use of the Internet for health-related questions is increasing, but it is not clear whether individuals can understand the information available online. Most health organizations recommend that health educational materials (HEMs) be written below the sixth grade reading level. This study was designed to evaluate the readability level of available online HEMs pertaining to traumatic brain injury (TBI), epilepsy, and posttraumatic epilepsy (PTE).
methodsThis cross-sectional readability assessment included HEMs from TBI and epilepsy stakeholder organizations and those obtained from four Internet searches. The search strategy was designed to replicate a nonmedical individual's keyword searches. Each HEM was assessed with an online automated readability tool using three indices (Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook). Findings were compared as a function of organization type (journalistic news or health organization), targeted medical condition (TBI, epilepsy, or PTE), or content topic (patient health education, clinical research education, or both).
resultsReadability analysis of 405 identified HEMs revealed scores above the sixth grade reading level recommendation. Only 6.2% of individual HEMs met the sixth grade recommendation. Journalistic news organizations' HEMs had similar readability levels to health organizations' HEMs. PTE-related HEMs required the highest readability level, >11th grade (P < .001). There were significant differences in the readability scores (P < .01 for all indices) among HEMs with information on health education, research education, or both topics. The highest required readability level (>12 grade level) was for HEMs that included both health and research education. SIGNIFICANCE: The majority of TBI-, epilepsy-, and PTE-related online HEMs do not meet the sixth grade reading recommendation. Improving the readability of HEMs may advance health literacy around TBI, epilepsy, and PTE, leading to more effective participant recruitment/retention strategies for future antiepileptogenesis trials in persons with TBI and perhaps better patient-centered outcomes.
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.