ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Readability of patient education materials for bariatric surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Educational Materials for Pheochromocytoma Exceed Recommended Readability Level: An Analysis Across Three Independent Reading Instruments.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Readability in Patient Education Materials for Primary Hyperparathyroidism.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Evaluating the readability, understandability, quality, and popularity of online materials about epilepsy in children.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Assessing the Readability, Quality, and Reliability of Online Patient Information Materials Related to Sarcopenia.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Patients' perceptions of bariatric surgery in the Deep South: the impact of health literacy.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Readability of AI-Generated Patient Information Leaflets on Alzheimer's, Vascular Dementia, and Delirium.Cureus · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Responses to Questions About Keratoconus Using ChatGPT-4.0, Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot: A Comparative Study of Large Language Models on Keratoconus.Eye & contact lens · 2025Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models for Accuracy and Completeness of Vitiligo Patient Education: A Comparative Analysis.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Protein Cards: A nutrition education tool for metabolic bariatric surgery.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Readability of online patient education material for foregut surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Readability and quality assessment of online patient education materials for spinal and epidural anesthesia.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024Article
- Leveraging Generative Artificial Intelligence Models in Patient Education on Inferior Vena Cava Filters.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Large language models and bariatric surgery patient education: a comparative readability analysis of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Bard, and online institutional resources.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBariatric surgery is a successful treatment for obesity, but barriers to surgery exist, including low health literacy. National organizations recommend patient education materials (PEM) not exceed a sixth-grade reading level. Difficult to comprehend PEM can exacerbate barriers to bariatric surgery, especially in the Deep South where high obesity and low literacy rates exist. This study aimed to assess and compare the readability of webpages and electronic medical record (EMR) bariatric surgery PEM from one institution.
methodsReadability of online bariatric surgery and standardized perioperative EMR PEM were analyzed and compared. Text readability was assessed by validated instruments: Flesch Reading Ease Formula (FRE), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog (GF), Coleman-Liau Index (CL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Automated Readability Index (ARI), and Linsear Write Formula (LWF). Mean readability scores were calculated with standard deviations and compared using unpaired t-tests.
results32 webpages and seven EMR education documents were analyzed. Webpages were overall "difficult to read" compared to "standard/average" readability EMR materials (mean FRE 50.5 ± 18.3 vs. 67.4 ± 4.2, p = 0.023). All webpages were at or above high school reading level: mean FKGL 11.8 ± 4.4, GF 14.0 ± 3.9, CL 9.5 ± 3.2, SMOG 11.0 ± 3.2, ARI 11.7 ± 5.1, and LWF 14.9 ± 6.6. Webpages with highest reading levels were nutrition information and lowest were patient testimonials. EMR materials were sixth to ninth grade reading level: FKGL 6.2 ± 0.8, GF 9.3 ± 1.4, CL 9.7 ± 0.9, SMOG 7.1 ± 0.8, ARI 6.1 ± 1.0, and LWF 5.9 ± 0.8.
conclusionSurgeon curated bariatric surgery webpages have advanced reading levels above recommended thresholds compared to standardized PEM from an EMR. This readability gap may unintentionally contribute to barriers to surgery and affect postoperative outcomes. Streamlined efforts are needed to create materials that are easier to read and comply with recommendations.
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.