ArticleOTO open
Readability of Online Materials Related to Vocal Cord Leukoplakia.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Readability, understandability, and quality of online education materials and large language models for retrograde cricopharyngeal muscle dysfunction.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 the Quality and Readability of Online Resources on Corneal Transplantation.Cureus · 2024Article
- ChatGPT vs. web search for patient questions: what does ChatGPT do better?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 · 2024Article
- Conclusiveness, readability and textual characteristics of plain language summaries from medical and non-medical organizations: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Are Mobile Applications in Laryngology Designed for All Patients?The Laryngoscope · 2023Review
- Quality and readability of online information on plantar fasciitis and calcaneal spur.Rheumatology international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess readability and understandability of online materials for vocal cord leukoplakia. STUDY
designReview of online materials.
settingAcademic medical center.
methodsA Google search of "vocal cord leukoplakia" was performed, and the first 50 websites were considered for analysis. Readability was measured by the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Understandability and actionability were assessed by 2 independent reviewers with the PEMAT-P (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials). Unpaired
resultsTwenty-two websites (17 patient oriented, 5 physician oriented) met inclusion criteria. For the entire cohort, FRES, FKGL, and SMOG scores (mean ± SD) were 36.90 ± 20.65, 12.96 ± 3.28, and 15.65 ± 3.57, respectively, indicating that materials were difficult to read at a >12th-grade level. PEMAT-P understandability and actionability scores were 73.65% ± 7.05% and 13.63% ± 22.47%. Statistically, patient-oriented sites were more easily read than physician-oriented sites (
conclusionOnline materials for vocal cord leukoplakia are written at a level more advanced than what is recommended for patient education materials. Awareness of the current ways that these online materials are failing our patients may lead to improved education materials in the future.
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.