ArticleJSES international2022
Readability assessment of patient educational materials for shoulder arthroplasty from top academic orthopedic institutions.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation and Comparison of Large Language Model Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome: A Quality and Readability Assessment Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Patient-facing materials for hip and knee preservation surgery are written well above recommended reading level.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2026Article
- Comparing the readability of online patient education materials for LASIK and cataract surgery.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Article
- Readability of patient education materials for lumbar disc replacement.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Can popular AI large language models provide reliable answers to frequently asked questions about rotator cuff tears?JSES international · 2025Article
- Both English- and Spanish-Language Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Online Patient Education Materials Are Written at Higher-Than-Recommended Reading Levels.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- ChatGPT is capable of providing satisfactory responses to frequently asked questions regarding total shoulder arthroplasty.Shoulder & elbow · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Evaluation of readability of patient education materials on lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) from the top 25 orthopedic institutions.JSES international · 2023Article
- Online resources for information on shoulder arthroplasty: an assessment of quality and readability.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2023Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- Readability assessment of patient educational materials for pediatric spinal conditions from top academic orthopedic institutions.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2023Review
- Reducing the Use of Complex Words and Reducing Sentence Length to <15 Words Improves Readability of Patient Education Materials Regarding Sports Medicine Knee Injuries.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Most patient education materials on shoulder conditions from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons exceed recommended readability levels.JSES international · 2023Article
- Readability assessment of patient educational materials for pediatric spinal deformity from top academic orthopedic institutions.Spine deformity · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.