Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36748797›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2024

Assessing the readability and quality of online information on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.

H Raja, Z R Almansoor

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Assessing the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

H RajaUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Z R AlmansoorUniversity of Manchester, UK.
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBenign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is the most common cause of peripheral vertigo. It can have a significant impact on quality of life, with individuals often seeking information online for reassurance and education. The aim of this study is to assess the readability and quality of online information on BPPV.

methodsThe terms 'benign paroxysmal positional vertigo' and 'BPPV' were entered into Google. The first 50 websites generated for each search term were screened. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index and Gunning Fog Index (GFOG). Quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Spearman's correlation between quality and readability was calculated.

resultsA total of 39 websites met the inclusion criteria. The mean and 95% confidence intervals for the FRES, FKGL, SMOG, GFOG and DISCERN scores were 50.2 (46.1-54.3), 10.6 (9.87-11.4), 10.1 (9.5-10.7), 13.6 (12.7-14.4) and 36.7 (34.6-38.7), respectively. Weak correlation was noted between DISCERN and FRES (

conclusionOnline information on BPPV is generally of poor quality and low readability. It is essential that healthcare professionals inform their patients of this limitation and advocate for improved online patient education resources that are both high quality and easy to comprehend.

Indexed as

Benign Paroxysmal Positional VertigoComprehensionHumansInternetQuality of LifeReadingSmogSmogBPPVComprehensionConsumer health informationCOVID-19Data accuracyOtolaryngologyReading

Identifiers

PMID36748797
PMCPMC10757881
OpenAlexW4319334149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.