ArticleDysphagia2023
Assessment of Online Patient Education Material About Dysphagia.
Article in Dysphagia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge Levels and Learning Needs in Dysphagia Management: Perspectives from Professional and Non-Professional Stakeholders in Five European Countries.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of microsoft copilot artificial intelligence chatbot and google search in answering patient inquiries about infertility: evaluating readability, understandability, and actionability.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- Caregivers' Knowledge and Experiences in Recognizing and Managing Dysphagia in Patients with Myopathy.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- The quality and reliability of short videos about amblyopia on Bilibili and TikTok: A cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To examine quality, readability, understandability, and actionability of English-language online educational materials about dysphagia. A Google search of "dysphagia" and related terms was conducted. Web page quality and accountability were measured using HON and URAC certification seals, the DISCERN instrument, and JAMA benchmark criteria. Understandability and actionability were assessed with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Material (PEMAT-P). Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (F-KGL), Gunning Fog (FOG), and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) scores using dedicated readability software. Fifty web pages were analyzed. Seventeen web pages displayed a HON or URAC seal. DISCERN scores ranged from 17 to 50 (Mdn = 25.00; IQR = 32.25-21.00). Of the JAMA benchmark criteria, 88% of web pages met the disclosure criterion, while only 22% met the authorship, 20% met the attribution, and 16% met the currency criteria. PEMAT-P understandability and actionability scores were 69.38% ± 11.14% and 28.58% ± 22.19%, respectively. Readability scores, on average, exceeded the recommended grade reading levels for health information (FRE 46.34 ± 13.59, F-KGL 10.26 ± 2.29, FOG 12.11 ± 2.08, and SMOG 12.38 ± 1.70). Online materials about dysphagia can be improved by obtaining quality certificates and by including content that is more readable and easier to understand and act upon.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36205800What 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.