ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2023
Functional endoscopic sinus surgery: assessing the readability and quality of online information.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 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.
- What Large Language Models offer about Familial Mediterranean Fever: An Analysis of Quality, Readability, Completeness, and Accuracy.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2025Article
- The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to assess the readability and quality of online information on functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS).
methodsThe term 'functional endoscopic sinus surgery' was entered into the Google, Bing and Yahoo search engines. The first 30 websites for each search engine were screened. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, and Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Spearman's correlation between quality and readability was calculated.
resultsThirty-three websites met the inclusion criteria. The mean and standard deviations for the FRES, FKG, SMOG, GFI, and DISCERN scores were 49 (13.1), 10.9 (2.5), 10.2 (1.9), 13.6 (2.4), and 51.1 (12.8), respectively. A positive correlation was noted between the FRES and DISCERN (
conclusionsOnline information on FESS is generally written above the recommended reading levels and of fair quality.
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.