ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2020
Evaluation of patient education materials for stereotactic radiosurgery from high-performing neurosurgery hospitals and professional societies.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Promoting Health Literacy With Human-in-the-Loop Video Understandability Classification of YouTube Videos: Development and Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the readability and utility of patient education materials for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Therefore, the goal of this investigation was to evaluate such materials from high-performing neurosurgery hospitals and professional societies through an analysis of readability and educational content.
methodsIn this cross-cross sectional study, 61 websites associated with the top 50 neurosurgery and neurology hospitals according to U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) and 11 predetermined professional medical societies were queried. Identified SRS education materials were analyzed by 6 readability indices. Educational content was assessed by 10 criteria based on surveys of patients' perspectives about SRS.
resultsFifty-four materials were identified from the target population (45 from USNWR hospital websites and 9 from professional society websites). Mean readability of materials ranged from 11.7 to 15.3 grade level, far more difficult than national recommendations of sixth and eighth grade. Materials were found to have deficiencies in educational content. Compared with high-performing hospitals, materials from websites of professional societies were longer (
conclusionPublicly available online patient educational materials for SRS are written at reading levels above national recommendations. Furthermore, many lack information identified as important by patients. Reevaluation and improvement of online SRS educational materials on a national scale are warranted.
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.