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.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Use of Large Language Models in Improving the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Peripheral Nerve Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An infodemiological analysis of arabic online educational content on low back pain: Insights into quality and reliability.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Endoscopic Spine Surgery.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
- Readability of patient education materials for lumbar disc replacement.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- A Qualitative Study of Factors That Influence Older Adults' Work on the Arduous Path to Spine Surgery.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Generative Language Models in Personalizing Medical Information: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR AI · 2024Article
- Source Characteristics Influence AI-Enabled Orthopaedic Text Simplification: Recommendations for the Future.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
37466719What 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.