Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35141675›Full record

ArticleJSES international2022

Readability assessment of patient educational materials for shoulder arthroplasty from top academic orthopedic institutions.

John W Stelzer, Ian J Wellington, Maxwell T Trudeau, Michael R Mancini, Matthew R LeVasseur, James C Messina, Augustus D Mazzocca

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JSES international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Readability Analysis of Patient Education Material on Rotator Cuff Injuries From the Top 25 Ranking Orthopaedic Institutions.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Readability of spine-related patient education materials: a standard method for improvement.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

John W StelzerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA.
Ian J WellingtonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA.
Maxwell T TrudeauDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA.
Michael R ManciniDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA.
Matthew R LeVasseurDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA.
James C MessinaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA.
Augustus D MazzoccaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated that online patient educational materials are written at reading levels too advanced for the average patient. The average American reads at the eighth-grade reading level. To date, the readability of online educational material of academic centers for shoulder arthroplasty has not been analyzed.

methodsOnline patient educational materials from the top 25 orthopedic institutions, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, were assessed utilizing the following readability assessments: Flesch-Kincaid (FK), Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Simple Measure of the Gobbledygook Index, Automated Readability Index, FORCAST, and the New Dale and Chall Readability. All of these scores, with the exception of the Flesch Reading Ease, provide an output indicating reading difficulty based on grade level. Correlations between academic institutional ranking and FK scores were evaluated using a Spearman regression. Lastly, additional factors including geographical location, private versus public institution, and use of concomitant multi-media modalities that may impact institutional readability scores (as determined by FK) were evaluated.

resultsOnly 16.0% of the top 25 institutions included online material at or below the eighth-grade reading level. Moreover, half of the online resources evaluated (those with FK score ≥9.3) were not at a suitable reading level for more than two-thirds of the general United States population (∼70%). Overall, the composite mean scores were 9.5 ± 2.1 for FK, 52.8 ± 9. for 4 Flesch Reading Ease, 12.2 ± 2.4 for Gunning Fog, 11.6 ± 1.8 for Coleman-Liau, 12.3 ± 1.7 for Simple Measure of the Gobbledygook Index, 9.6 ± 2.6 for Automated Readability, 11.1 ± 0.6 for FORCAST, and 5.9 ± 0.6 for New Dale and Chall. There was no correlation between institutional ranking and FK scores (ρ = -0.15;

conclusionShoulder arthroplasty online patient educational material at top-ranked orthopedic institutions have poor readability and are likely not suitable for the majority of patients in the United States.

Indexed as

Health literacyOrthopedic online resourcesPatient educationReadabilityShoulder arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35141675
PMCPMC8811415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.