ArticleBioMed research international2022
Assessing the Readability of Anesthesia-Related Patient Education Materials from Major Anesthesiology Organizations.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and DeepSeek-V3.2 for Rosacea-Related Information: Accuracy, Reliability, Readability, and Reference Hallucinations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluating Large Language Model Adherence to Targeted Fifth-Grade Readability Standards in Patient Education on Chronic Conditions.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2026Article
- Appraisal of Readability in Patient-Facing Resources for the Inspire Hypoglossal Nerve Implant.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Navigating care: a multicentre US survey of health literacy in paediatric perioperative care.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Observational
- Readability of patient education materials on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
- The readability of online English and Spanish patient education materials on anaesthesia for orthopaedic surgery.BJA open · 2025Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence large language model chatbots in answering frequently asked questions in anaesthesia.BJA open · 2024Article
- Simulated anesthesia consent discussions demonstrate high level of comprehension and education requirements for patients: A pilot study.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Lower Back Pain Imaging: A Readability Analysis.Cureus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.