ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2024
Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Congenital Hand Differences.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Expert Evaluation of Multimodal Large Language Models for Pediatric Rash Diagnosis: Clinical Utility, Safety, Information Quality, and Readability.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cloudy or Clear? Readability and Content Analysis of Patient Education Materials in Myasthenia Gravis.Muscle & nerve · 2026Article
- Reliability and readability of AI platforms for pediatric health advice: a comparative analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Demographic and Socioeconomic Disparities in Congenital Hand Difference Surgery.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- ChatGPT and other large language models in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multidimensional audit of reliability, quality, and readability.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Multidimensional assessment of large language model responses to patient questions on gestational diabetes mellitus.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessing the Understandability and Actionability of Education Materials for Agricultural Workers' Health.Journal of agromedicine · 2025Article
- A structured evaluation of LLM-generated step-by-step instructions in cadaveric brachial plexus dissection.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Comparing patient education tools for chronic pain medications: Artificial intelligence chatbot versus traditional patient information leaflets.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Carpal Tunnel Surgery: Can Patients Read, Understand, and Act on Online Educational Resources?The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2024Article
- 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study is to assess the readability of online patient education materials (PEMs) for congenital hand differences.
methodsThe top 10 online, English-language PEMs for 10 conditions (polydactyly, syndactyly, trigger finger/thumb, clinodactyly, camptodactyly, symbrachydactyly, thumb hypoplasia, radial dysplasia, reduction defect, and amniotic band syndrome) were compiled and categorized by source and country. Readability was assessed using 5 tools: Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index (SMOG). To account for the potential effect of each condition's name in the aforementioned formulas, the analysis was repeated after replacing the name with a monosyllabic word/s.
resultsThe mean readability scores of the 100 PEMs were FRES 56.3, where the target was ≥80, FKGL 8.8, GFI 11.5, CLI 10.9, and SMOG 8.6, and the median grade score was 9.8, where the target grade was ≤6.9. Following adjustment, all readability scores improved significantly (
conclusionMost online PEMs for congenital hand differences are written above the recommended reading level of sixth grade, even when adjusted for the effect of the condition's name.
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.