ArticlePeerJ2022
Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on post-covid pain.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Readability, Quality, Understandability, and Actionability of ChatGPT Generated GI Patient Education Versus AGA Patient Center.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Quality and Readability of Websites on Tongue Base Procedures for Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026Article
- A Comparative Assessment of Large Language Models in Congenital Hypothyroidism: Reliability, Quality and ReadabilityJournal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology · 2026Article
- Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of the quality and reliability of Wilson disease videos on Bilibili, Douyin, and Kuaishou.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Longitudinal Analysis of the Usefulness, Readability, Consistency, and Capacity of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses Regarding the Reality of Chronic Pain in Children.Paediatric & neonatal pain · 2026Article
- Review of the Quality and Reliability of Online Arabic Content on Diabetic Retinopathy: Infodemiological Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of the quality, reliability, and readability of five large language model responses to frequently asked questions on gestational hypertension.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Multidimensional assessment of large language model responses to patient questions on gestational diabetes mellitus.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Revolutionizing patient care: assessing ai-created discharge education for total hip replacement patients.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- A critical analysis of online patient-directed resources on catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmias.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Quality Assessment of Medical Institutions' Websites Regarding Prescription Drug Misuse of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists by Off-Label Use for Weight Loss: Website Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- An infodemiologic review of internet resources on dental hypersensitivity: A quality and readability assessment.PloS one · 2025Article
- Performance Assessment of GPT 4.0 on the Japanese Medical Licensing Examination.Current medical science · 2024Article
- Assessment of readability, reliability, and quality of ChatGPT®, BARD®, Gemini®, Copilot®, Perplexity® responses on palliative care.Medicine · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of the Internet to access healthcare-related information is increasing day by day. However, there are concerns regarding the reliability and comprehensibility of this information. This study aimed to investigate the readability, reliability, and quality of Internet-based patient educational materials (PEM) related to "post-COVID-19 pain." Methods: One-hundred websites that fit the purposes of the study were identified by searching for the terms "post-COVID-19 pain" and "pain after COVID-19" using the Google search engine on February 24, 2022. The website readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning FOG (GFOG). The reliability, quality, and popularity of the websites were assessed using the JAMA score, DISCERN score/Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct, and Alexa, respectively. Results: Upon investigation of the textual contents, the mean FRES was 51.40 ± 10.65 (difficult), the mean FKGL and SMOG were 10.93 ± 2.17 and 9.83 ± 1.66 years, respectively, and the mean GFOG was 13.14 ± 2.16 (very difficult). Furthermore, 24.5% of the websites were highly reliable according to JAMA scores, 8% were of high quality according to GQS values, and 10% were HONcode-compliant. There was a statistically significant difference between the website types and reliability ( Conclusion: The readability level of PEM on post-COVID-19 pain was considerably higher than grade 6 educational level, as recommended by the National Institutes of Health, and had low reliability and poor quality. We suggest that Internet-based PEM should have a certain degree of readability that is in accordance with the educational level of the general public and feature reliable content.
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.