ArticleInsights into imaging2021
Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?
Article in Insights into imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated Approaches of Text Simplification of Patient Education Materials: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The Challenge of Understanding Gilmore's Groin: An Analysis of Online Patient Resources.Cureus · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic factors associated with public awareness of medical radiation risks and safety practices in the West Bank, Palestine: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Review
- Communicating radiation risk in healthcare: an ethical imperative amidst scientific uncertainty.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Readability analysis of AAOS and ASSH shoulder and elbow patient education online content: A 9-year follow-up study.Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013) · 2025Article
- Updating Health Canada's Heat-Health Messages for the Environment and Climate Change Canada Heat Warning System: A Collaboration with Canadian Experts.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Readability of patient education materials on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
- Assessing the language availability, readability, suitability and comprehensibility of heat-health messaging content on health authority webpages and online resources in Canada.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Large Language Models in Tailoring Educational Content for Cancer Survivors and Their Caregivers: Quality Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Evaluating Patient Literacy in the Health Information Space: What Does Release of Information Tell Us?Advances in health information science and practice · 2025Article
- Review
- The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies.Pediatric research · 2023Article
- Comprehensiveness of online sources for patient education on hereditary hearing impairment.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
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
backgroundIncreasing numbers of patients and carers rely on online resources for healthcare information. Radiation safety can be misunderstood by patients and clinicians and lead to patient anxiety. We aimed to assess the readability of online patient educational materials (PEMs) related to radiation safety.
methodsA total of 84 articles pertaining to radiation safety from 14 well-known online resources were identified. PEMs were then analysed using Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2019. Readability was assessed using eight different instruments: the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Raygor Estimate, SMOG, Coleman-Liau, Fry, FORCAST, Gunning Fog, and Flesch Reading Ease Score formula. The mean reading grade level (RGL) of each article was compared to the 6th and 8th grade reading level using 1-sample t-tests.
resultsThe cumulative mean RGL for all 84 articles was 13.3 (range = 8.6-17.4), and none were written at or below the 6th or 8th grade level. The cumulative mean RGL exceeded the 6th grade reading level by an average of 7.3 levels (95% CI, 6.8-7.8; p < 0.001) and the 8th grade level by an average of 5.3 grade levels (95% CI, 4.8-5.8; p < 0.001). The mean Flesch Reading Ease Score was 39/100 ('difficult').
conclusionCurrently available online PEMs related to radiation safety are still written at higher than recommended reading levels. Radiation safety is a topic in which the specialist training of radiologists is crucial in providing guidance to patients. Addressing the readability of online PEMs can improve radiology-patient communication and support the shift to a patient-centred model of practice.
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.