Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37466719›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

Readability of spine-related patient education materials: a standard method for improvement.

John Baumann, Samuel Marshall, Andrew Groneck, Stefan J Hanish, Theodore Choma, Steven DeFroda

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Readability of online patient education materials for cervical disc replacement.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

John BaumannDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri Health Care, Columbia, MO, USA. jrb2c5@health.missouri.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8302-4769
Samuel MarshallDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri Health Care, Columbia, MO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5091-137X
Andrew GroneckDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri Health Care, Columbia, MO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2454-1189
Stefan J HanishDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri Health Care, Columbia, MO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4519-0736
Theodore ChomaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri Health Care, Columbia, MO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9194-8563
Steven DeFrodaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri Health Care, Columbia, MO, USA. defrodas@health.missouri.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8518-5371

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOrthopaedic patient education materials (PEMs) have repeatedly been shown to be well above the recommended reading level by the National Institute of Health and American Medical Association. The purpose of this study is to create a standardized method to improve the readability of PEMs describing spine-related conditions and injuries. It is hypothesized that reducing the usage of complex words (≥ 3 syllables) and reducing sentence length to < 15 words per sentence improves readability of PEMs as measured by all seven readability formulas used.

methodsOrthoInfo.org was queried for spine-related PEMs. The objective readability of PEMs was evaluated using seven unique readability formulas before and after applying a standardized method to improve readability while preserving critical content. This method involved reducing the use of > 3 syllable words and ensuring sentence length is < 15 words. Paired samples t-tests were conducted to assess relationships with the cut-off for statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

resultsA total of 20 spine-related PEM articles were used in this study. When comparing original PEMs to edited PEMs, significant differences were seen among all seven readability scores and all six numerical descriptive statistics used. Per the Flesch Kincaid Grade level readability formula, one original PEM (5%) versus 15 edited PEMs (75%) met recommendations of a sixth-grade reading level.

conclusionThe current study shows that using this standardized method significantly improves the readability of spine-related PEMs and significantly increased the likelihood that PEMs will meet recommendations for being at or below the sixth-grade reading level.

Indexed as

Health LiteracySpinal DiseasesComprehensionHumansInternetLanguagePatient Education as TopicUnited StatesHealth literacyPatient education materialsReadabilitySpine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.