Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35872854›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2022

Assessing the Readability of Anesthesia-Related Patient Education Materials from Major Anesthesiology Organizations.

Anna Pashkova, Raksha Bangalore, Cynthia Tan, Peter F Svider, Anna Korban, Yee-Kuen Yam, Faraz Chaudhry, Jean Anderson Eloy, Jean Daniel Eloy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Readability of patient education materials on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Anna PashkovaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Raksha BangaloreDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Cynthia TanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Peter F SviderDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Anna KorbanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Yee-Kuen YamDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3693-326X
Faraz ChaudhryDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Jean Anderson EloyDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Jean Daniel EloyDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3555-9432

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The National Institutes of Health (NIH), American Medical Association (AMA), and the US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) recommend that patient education materials (PEMs) be written between the 4th to 6th grade reading level to ensure readability by the average American. In this study, we examine the reading levels of online patient education materials from major anesthesiology organizations. Methods: Readability analysis of PEMs found on the websites of anesthesiology organizations was performed using the Flesch Reading Ease score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook, New Dale-Chall test, Coleman-Liau Index, New Fog Count, Raygor Readability Estimate, the FORCAST test, and the Fry Score. Results: Most patient educational materials from the websites of the anesthesiology organizations evaluated were written at or above the 10th grade reading level. Conclusions: Online patient education materials from the major anesthesiology societies are written at levels higher than an average American adult reading skill level and higher than recommended by National Institute of Health, American Medical Association, and US Department of Health and Human Services. Online resources should be revised to improve readability. Simplifying text, using shorter sentences and terms are strategies online resources can implement to improve readability. Future studies should incorporate comprehensibility, user-friendliness, and linguistic ease to further understand the implications on overall healthcare.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaAnesthesiologyHealth LiteracyComprehensionEducational StatusHumansInternetPatient Education as TopicUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35872854
PMCPMC9300304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.