ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2020
Evaluating the readability, understandability, and quality of online materials about chest pain in children.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the readability, understandability, quality, and popularity of online materials about epilepsy in children.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- The readability and quality paradox: Comparing ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity outputs on pediatric chest pain queries.PloS one · 2026Article
- Patient education resources for oral mucositis: a google search and ChatGPT analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Assessment of Understandability and Actionability of YouTube Videos on Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn.Cureus · 2023Article
- Evidence-based health information about pulmonary embolism: Assessing the quality, usability and readability of online and offline patient information.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Assessing Communicative Effectiveness of Public Health Information in Chinese: Developing Automatic Decision Aids for International Health Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Predicting Writing Styles of Web-Based Materials for Children's Health Education Using the Selection of Semantic Features: Machine Learning Approach.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An increasing number of individuals use the Internet to obtain health information. However, online health information is unregulated and highly variable. We aimed to assess the readability, understandability, and quality of online information available for "chest pain in children." This analysis was performed in January 2020, by inputting the search term "chest pain in children" into Google. The 180 search results were evaluated/categorized. The readability was assessed using the Flesch reading ease score, the Gunning FOG readability score, the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, the Coleman-Liau score, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook readability score, the Fry readability score, and the automated readability index (ARI). The quality was assessed through the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. The understandability was evaluated by the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for this study. Sixty-five websites were analyzed (academic and hospital websites (n = 30), physicians and health information websites (n = 35)). Among all websites, the average reading grade level was 9.99. There was no statistical difference between the two groups for the average readability level (p: 0.645). The mean PEMAT score for all websites was 65.09%. There was no statistical difference between the two groups for the average PEMAT score (p: 0.945). For both groups, the understandability score was below 70%. The average JAMA benchmark score was 2.43 ± 1.06, with a statistically significant difference between the academic and hospital websites (2.07 ± 0.91) and physician and health information websites (2.74 ± 1.09, p: 0.009).Conclusion: The readability of online materials available for patients regarding "chest pain in children" was significantly higher than the grade 6 recommended by the National Institutes of Health. The current online health information related to pediatric chest pain may be too difficult for the average reader to read. The quality and understandability were not good for both groups. Improving the readability, understandability, and quality of pediatric health-related online materials has the potential to reduce parental anxiety, improve baseline medical knowledge, and even enhance the physician-parent alliance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32894353What 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.