ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2022
Patient Education Materials Found via Google Search for Shoulder Arthroscopy Are Written at Too-High of a Reading Level.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evaluating if ChatGPT Can Answer Common Patient Questions Compared With OrthoInfo Regarding Rotator Cuff Tears.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025Article
- Can popular AI large language models provide reliable answers to frequently asked questions about rotator cuff tears?JSES international · 2025Article
- Evaluating a retrieval-augmented pregnancy chatbot: a comprehensibility-accuracy-readability study of the DIAN AI assistant.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Evaluating if ChatGPT Can Answer Common Patient Questions Compared to OrthoInfo Regarding Lateral Epicondylitis.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 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
- Google Bard and ChatGPT in Orthopedics: Which Is the Better Doctor in Sports Medicine and Pediatric Orthopedics? The Role of AI in Patient Education.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Readability and Quality of Online Patient Education Materials Concerning Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Cureus · 2024Article
- Carpal Tunnel Surgery: Can Patients Read, Understand, and Act on Online Educational Resources?The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2024Article
- Differences in the Medical Advisability of Online Pitching Recommendations for Youth Softball Players Based on Website Source.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the quality and correlation of readability on actionability and understandability of shoulder arthroscopy-related patient education materials (PEMs) found via a routine Google search. Methods: Two independent authors performed an online Google search with the term "shoulder arthroscopy." The first 5 pages of search results were then screened for PEMs. Journal articles, news articles, nontext materials, and unrelated websites were excluded. The readability of included resources was calculated using objective metrics: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Score, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook index, Coleman-Liau Index, and the Gunning Fog Index. Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Printed Materials assessed for understandability and actionability. Associations between readability and actionability and understandability were determined using Spearman correlation and linear regression. Results: The searches returned 53 websites related to shoulder arthroscopy. A total of 34 (64%) met inclusion criteria. A high school reading level or greater was required to read the average PEM according to all scales used. The average PEM received a Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Printed Materials score of 61.33 in understandability (range 18.75-89.47) and 55.59 points in actionability (range 16.67-83.33). An easily understood or actionable article would score at least 70 points. A moderate correlation was observed between readability and actionability on three of the scales used (r = 0.5, r = 0.59, r = 0.61). Conclusions: Most shoulder arthroscopy PEMs identified on Google are not written at a level that the average patient can read, understand, or act on (actionability). Clinical Relevance: Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the resources that patients use to obtain medical information. More accessible PEMs should be developed for patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy to enhance comprehension of their condition and improve shared decision-making.
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.