Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36033169›Full record

ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2022

Patient Education Materials Found via Google Search for Shoulder Arthroscopy Are Written at Too-High of a Reading Level.

Youssef Abdullah, Aaron Alokozai, Abraham J Mathew, Michaela A Stamm, Mary K Mulcahey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Youssef AbdullahDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana; and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Aaron AlokozaiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana; and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abraham J MathewDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana; and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Michaela A StammDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana; and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Mary K MulcaheyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana; and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID36033169
PMCPMC9402457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.