ArticleCureus2020
Readability Assessment of Online Patient Education Materials on Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Modeling-Enabled Analysis of Atrial Fibrillation on Social Media.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Readability analysis of breast cancer resources shared on X-implications for patient education and the potential of AI.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Assessing the Readability and Quality of Web-Based Resources on Exercise Stress Testing: Cross-Sectional Readability and Quality Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT-4's correctness in patient-focused informing and awareness for atrial fibrillation.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 Responses on Hyperlipidemia for Patient Education.Cureus · 2024Article
- Unlocking Health Literacy: The Ultimate Guide to Hypertension Education From ChatGPT Versus Google Gemini.Cureus · 2024Article
- Comprehensiveness, Accuracy, and Readability of Exercise Recommendations Provided by an AI-Based Chatbot: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2024Article
- Readability and content gaps in online epilepsy surgery materials as potential health literacy and shared-decision-making barriers.Epilepsia open · 2023Article
- Zenker's Diverticulum: Readability and Quality of Online Written Education Materials.Dysphagia · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health literacy is emerging as an important factor for medical outcomes as more patients turn to the internet for information about their disease. However educational materials on complex conditions such as atrial fibrillation tend to still be esoteric and result in compromised patient autonomy. We add to the current literature by examining the reading level of websites of major healthcare intuitions and general medicine websites. An online Google search using the term "atrial fibrillation" was used to collect patient educational material from the first 20 academic health institutions (AHI) and 20 non-affiliated general medicine websites (GMW). The materials were assessed for readability using nine (9) tests from the analysis software Readability Studio (Oleander Software Solutions Ltd., Maharashtra, India). The patient education materials from the AHI and GMW websites were written at a college freshman reading grade level (13.050 ± 0.845) and high school junior year reading level (11.64 ± 0.789) respectively. The GMW tend to have a wider range of readability levels, and many were scored at the 6th-grade level. In conclusion, the readability levels of patient education materials on atrial fibrillation from both the AHI and GMW are well above the 6th-grade level recommended by the NIH and AMA, posing a risk to the patients' understanding of the materials. The high readability scores found across all websites and the differences between the groups have been attributed to the various goals and target audiences of the material.
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.