ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2021
Patient-reported outcome measures in ophthalmology: too difficult to read?
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an easy-read version of the Brain Injury associated Visual Impairment - Impact Questionnaire (BIVI-IQ).Clinical rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Defining a standards framework for ophthalmology real-world data methodologies through an expert-led Delphi consensus.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Keeping a PROMise: embedding patient voices in ophthalmic outcomes.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Implementing patient and public involvement (PPI) in eye research: reflections from developing a research study on Geographic Atrophy treatment acceptability.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Validation of the Italian Version of the Visual Function and Corneal Health Status (V-FUCHS) Questionnaire: A Patient-Reported Visual Disability Instrument for Fuchs' Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Readability of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Used in Plastic Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the test-retest and inter-mode comparability of the Impact of Vision Impairment questionnaire in people with chronic eye diseases.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Use of patient-reported outcome measures after breast reconstruction in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- A prospective study of a new presbyopia pseudophakic intraocular lens: Safety, efficacy and satisfaction.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
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
objectivePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used in clinical trials and research. Yet, in order to be effective, a PROM needs to be understandable to respondents. The aim of this cross-sectional analysis was to assess reading level of PROMs validated for use in common eye conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Readability measures determine the level of education a person is expected to have attained to be able to read a passage of text; this was calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, FORCAST and Gunning-Fog tests within readability calculations software package Oleander Readability Studio 2012.1. Forty PROMs, previously validated for use in at least one of age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma and/or diabetic retinopathy, were identified for inclusion via a systematic literature search. The American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommend patient materials should not exceed a sixth-grade reading level. Number of PROMs exceeding this level was calculated.
resultsMedian (IQR) readability scores were 7.9 (5.4-10.5), 9.9 (8.9-10.7) and 8.4 (6.9-11.1) for Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, FORCAST and Gunning-Fog test, respectively. Depending on metric used, this meant 61% (95% CI 45% to 76%), 100% (95% CI 91% to 100%) and 80% (95% CI 65% to 91%) exceeded the recommended threshold.
conclusionMost PROMs commonly used in ophthalmology require a higher reading level than that recommended by the AMA and NIH and likely contain questions that are too difficult for many patients to read. Greater care is needed in designing PROMs appropriate for the literacy level of a population.
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.