ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2024
Assessing the readability and quality of online information on anosmia.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Specific Prompt Engineering Techniques on the Readability of LLM-Generated Patient Materials in Gastroenterology and Hepatology.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Examining Artificial Intelligence Chatbots' Responses in Providing Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Information for Young Adults: Qualitative Content Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Readability, Accessibility, and Quality of Online Health Information on Opioid Use Disorder: A Comparative Analysis of Government and Non-Government Websites.Advances in health information science and practice · 2026Article
- Readability and information quality of LLM-Generated HIV content: a methodological content evaluation.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5 responses in obstetric and gynecological emergencies: concordance, readability, and clinical reliability.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Virtual case reasoning and AI-assisted diagnostic instruction: an empirical study based on body interact and large language models.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Assessing the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnosmia can have a significant impact on well-being and quality of life. Due to an ageing population and the coronavirus disease 2019, increasing numbers of patients are seeking online information on anosmia. This report systematically assesses the readability and quality of online information on anosmia.
methodsThe terms 'anosmia' and 'loss of smell' 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 (GFI). Quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Spearman's correlation between quality and readability was calculated.
resultsA total of 79 websites met the inclusion criteria. The mean and 95% confidence interval for the FRES, FKGL, SMOG, GFI and DISCERN scores were 46.31 (42.94-49.68), 12.00 (11.27-12.73), 10.70 (10.16-11.23), 14.62 (13.85-15.39) and 2.90 (2.69-3.11), respectively. Significant negative correlation was noted between the DISCERN and FRES ( DISCUSSION: Online information on anosmia is written above the recommended reading age guidance in the UK, and has moderate deficiencies in quality. As a result, the information may be used inappropriately and could result in worse health outcomes. We recommend that patients are directed to websites produced by health providers or nonprofit organisations that develop material for patient health education.
conclusionsOnline information on anosmia is of low readability and moderate quality. Healthcare professionals should direct patients towards high-quality resources written for the layperson.
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.