ReviewJournal of children's orthopaedics2023
Readability assessment of patient educational materials for pediatric spinal conditions from top academic orthopedic institutions.
Review in Journal of children's orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The readability of total elbow arthroplasty educational materials.Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Readability of Educational Materials for Coronary Artery Disease and the Impact of Health Literacy on Medication Adherence and Health Outcomes.Journal of pharmacy practice · 2026Review
- Ethical and Linguistic Quality of Participant Information Sheets and Their Association with Recruitment Outcomes : An Empirical Bioethics Study of Clinical Trials.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Reliability and readability of AI platforms for pediatric health advice: a comparative analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Reliability and readability of five AI chatbots for concussion health advice across retrieval augmented and pretrained models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Readability Analysis of Commonly Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Orthopaedic Joint Literature.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Avascular Necrosis.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2026Article
- Readability of patient education materials for lumbar disc replacement.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Large Language Models Can Facilitate Patient Education.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2025Article
- Article
- ChatGPT-3.5 and -4.0 Do Not Reliably Create Readable Patient Education Materials for Common Orthopaedic Upper- and Lower-Extremity Conditions.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Assessing the clinical support capabilities of ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini in managing lumbar disc herniation.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Article
- Barriers to Health Care Communication: Patient Education Resource Readability and Spanish Translation for Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2024Article
- Appraisal of ChatGPT's responses to common patient questions regarding Tommy John surgery.Shoulder & elbow · 2024Article
- A Readability Analysis of Online Spondylolisthesis and Spondylolysis Patient Resources Among Pediatric Hospital Web Pages: A US-Based Study.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2023Article
- Enhancing Patient Education on Cardiovascular Rehabilitation with Large Language Models.Missouri medicineArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Internet has become a popular source of health information for patients and their families. Healthcare experts recommend that the readability of online education materials be at or below a sixth grade reading level. This translates to a standardized Flesch Reading Ease Score between 81 and 90, which is equivalent to conversational English. However, previous studies have demonstrated that the readability of online education materials of various orthopedic topics is too advanced for the average patient. To date, the readability of online education materials for pediatric spinal conditions has not been analyzed. The objective of this study was to assess the readability of online educational materials of top pediatric orthopedic hospital websites for pediatric spinal conditions. Methods: Online patient education materials from the top 25 pediatric orthopedic institutions, as ranked by the U.S. News and World Report hospitals for pediatric orthopedics, were assessed utilizing multiple readability assessment metrics including Flesch-Kincaid, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index, and others. Correlations between academic institutional ranking, geographic location, and the use of concomitant multimedia modalities with Flesch-Kincaid scores were evaluated using a Spearman regression. Results: Only 32% (8 of 25) of top pediatric orthopedic hospitals provided online health information at or below a sixth grade reading level. The mean Flesch-Kincaid score was 9.3 ± 2.5, Flesch Reading Ease 48.3 ± 16.2, Gunning Fog Score 10.7 ± 3.0, Coleman-Liau Index 12.1 ± 2.8, Simple Measure of the Gobbledygook Index 11.7 ± 2.1, Automated Readability Index 9.0 ± 2.7, FORCAST 11.3 ± 1.2, and Dale-Chall Readability Index 6.7 ± 1.4. There was no significant correlation between institutional ranking, geographic location, or use of video material with Flesch-Kincaid scores (p = 0.1042, p = 0.7776, p = 0.3275, respectively). Conclusion: Online educational material for pediatric spinal conditions from top pediatric orthopedic institutional websites is associated with excessively complex language which may limit comprehension for the majority of the US population. Type of study/Level of evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis/level III.
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.