ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2023
Assessing the Readability of Online Health Information for Colonoscopy - Analysis of Articles in 22 European Languages.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving patient communication and understanding of medical reports through text simplification with ChatGPT: a comparative study.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Readability of Online Informed Consent Forms for Implant-Based Breast Augmentation Across 6 Languages: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Dermatology "AI Babylon": Cross-Language Evaluation of AI-Crafted Dermatology Descriptions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Improving Patient Communication by Simplifying AI-Generated Dental Radiology Reports With ChatGPT: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A cross-language analysis of urolithiasis patient online materials: Assessment across 24 European languages.Central European journal of urology · 2025Article
- AI in Dental Radiology-Improving the Efficiency of Reporting With ChatGPT: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Readability Metrics in Patient Education: Where Do We Innovate?Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Readability of Patient Electronic Materials for Atopic Dermatitis in 23 Languages: Analysis and Implications for Dermatologists.Dermatology and therapy · 2024Article
- Hidradenitis Suppurativa Online Documents Readability: An Analysis Including 23 European Languages.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients often search on the Internet information about different medical conditions and procedures. This study aimed to evaluate online health information on colonoscopy, focusing on quantity and comprehensibility of internet resources dedicated to the colonoscopy. This information could be used by European Union (EU) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening providers to address patient's unfilled educational needs, fear of colonoscopy, and other barriers that deter from CRC screening. The term "colonoscopy" translated into 22 official EU languages was searched using the Google search engine. For each translation, generated list of websites was assessed with Google Translate. The first 50 websites in each language were assessed for suitability. Records in other languages were excluded. Included websites were free, focused on patient education, and did not have password. Readability assessments were performed with Lix score. A total of 588 websites in Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, and Swedish were evaluated. The overall mean Lix score was 56 ± 8 and was classified as very hard to comprehend. There were significant differences in mean Lix scores across the included languages (P<.001). There was not significant correlation (R
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.