ArticleCureus2022
An Analysis of the Readability of Phacoemulsification Online Resources.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the readability of online patient education materials for LASIK and cataract surgery.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Assessment of Large Language Models in Cataract Care Information Provision: A Quantitative Comparison.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Phacoemulsification is now the gold standard for cataract extraction and is greatly needed in low socioeconomic status (SES) communities, rural and older patient populations, and patients with poor vision. This greatly increases the importance of high readability for online resources on this topic. This study aims to assess the readability of online information about phacoemulsification based on readability scores for each resource. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. The term "phacoemulsification" was searched online, and each website was categorized by type: academic, physician, non-physician, commercial, social media, and unspecified. The readability scores for each website were calculated using six different readability tests and a composite score that reflects reading grade level was obtained. To evaluate the difference between the categories of websites, analysis of variance (ANOVA) testing was used. All test scores were compared with the 6
resultsA total of 20 websites were analyzed. Three websites (3/20; 15%) had a score which is correlated with a 6
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.