ArticleBMC ophthalmology2020
Assessment of online patient education materials designed for people with age-related macular degeneration.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping the Reliability-Readability Gap in the Education of Patients With Age-Related Macular Degeneration Across 6 Large Language Models: Comparative Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Utility of ChatGPT-4o in Creating Patient Handouts in Ophthalmology: A Comparison With American Academy of Ophthalmology Educational Materials.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Privacy policies for FDA-authorized or FDA-recognized digital therapeutics impose high digital health literacy demands: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Analyzing accessibility and suitability of online Krabbe disease resources.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Comparative readability of information on different treatment options for breast cancer, based on WeChat public accounts.PloS one · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) towards Anti-VEGF treatment under one-stop intravitreal injection model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Search engine optimization and its association with readability and accessibility of diabetic retinopathy websites.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Assessing the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials in Obstetrics and Gynecology Using Traditional Measures: Comparative Analysis and Limitations.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Survey of perspectives of people with inherited retinal diseases on ocular gene therapy in Australia.Gene therapy · 2023Article
- Patient Education Materials Found via Google Search for Shoulder Arthroscopy Are Written at Too-High of a Reading Level.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2022Review
- Assessment of patient education materials for age-related macular degeneration.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
- Assessment of the readability and quality of online patient education materials for the medical treatment of open-angle glaucoma.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2022Article
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a chronic eye condition that leads to permanent vision loss in the central visual field. AMD makes reading challenging and inefficient. People with AMD often find it difficult to access, process and understand written patient education materials (PEMs). To promote health literacy, the demands of written PEMs must match the literacy capacities of the target audience. This study aims to evaluate the readability (grade level) and suitability (appropriateness) of online PEMs designed for people with AMD.
methodsOnline PEMs were sourced from websites of national organizations providing patient education materials designed for people with AMD. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula and the Suitability Assessment of Materials instrument were used to assess the readability and suitability of PEMs. Descriptive statistics were used to compare online PEMs by organization based on national guidelines for readability level (≤ sixth grade) and the recommended suitability score (≥ 70%) for "superior" material.
resultsOne hundred online PEMs were evaluated from websites of 16 professional organizations. The mean readability level was 9.3 (range 5.0-16.6). The mean suitability score was 53% (range 18-78%). Only six (6%) of PEMs achieved the recommended guidelines for readability level and suitability score.
conclusionThe majority of online PEMs designed for people with AMD were written above the recommended readability level, and below the suggested suitability score. To promote health literacy, the demands of written health information must match the reading capacities of the target audience. Heeding to evidence-based guidelines for providing written information to patients with low health literacy and low vision is beneficial for both patients and health care providers. Future research is 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.