ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2024
Evaluating the readability of online testosterone search results.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2024. 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.
- Discordance Between Textual Reasoning and Visual Interpretation in Large Language Models for Low Back Pain: Cross-Sectional Quantitative Evaluation and Exploratory Multimodal Stress Test.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Quality and readability of online penile-cancer information: a Cross-Sectional Web Study.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Toward safer digital sexual health communication: evaluating the public health reliability of large language model responses on sexually transmitted infections.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Readability and information quality of LLM-Generated HIV content: a methodological content evaluation.BMC infectious diseases · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the budding interest in testosterone therapy (TTh), online health information plays a significant role in patients' health care decisions. Therefore, we evaluated the source and readability of web-based information available to patients regarding TTh on Google. From Google search terms "Testosterone Therapy" and "Testosterone Replacement", 77 unique sources were identified. Sources were categorized as Academic, Commercial, Institutional, or Patient Support, then evaluated using validated readability and English language text assessment tools: the Flesch Reading Ease score, Flesch Kincade, Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Coleman-Liau Index and Automated Readability index. The average grade level for understanding academic sources was 16 (college senior); commercial, institutional, and patient support sources were 13 (college freshman); 8 and 5 grade levels, respectively, above the average U.S. adult. Patient support sources were most prevalent, while commercial sources were the least at 35 and 14%, respectively. The average reading ease score was 36.8, indicative of difficult-to-read material overall. These results indicate that the most immediate online sources for TTh information exceed the average reading level of most adults within the U.S., hence more effort should be taken to publish accessible and readable material to improve patient health literacy.
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.