ArticleAlcohol (Fayetteville, N.Y.)2024
Evaluating the readability of online patient-facing resources for alcohol use disorder.
Article in Alcohol (Fayetteville, N.Y.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Web-based Information on Phytotherapy for Cancer Patients: A Quality and Readability Analysis.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- A comprehensive analysis of alcohol and other drug educational resources available in New South Wales, Australia for content, suitability and readability.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2025Article
- Intranasal insulin for the treatment of alcohol use disorder: design and methodology of an alcohol interaction randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Probenecid as a pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder: A randomized placebo-controlled alcohol interaction trial.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The goal of this study was to assess the readability of online resources pertaining to Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) as perceived by patients seeking treatment. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and American Medical Association (AMA) have recommended that medical resources should be written at a 6th-grade reading level. However, prior investigations in various medical fields have revealed that online materials often fail to adhere to these guidelines. An internet search was conducted to simulate the experience of patients seeking information on AUD treatment. The first 30 websites that did not require login credentials were examined using established readability tests. The main outcomes included: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Gunning Fog index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Readability Formula, and Coleman-Liau index. Thirty records were identified where the mean readability level was 12.37 (2.54). There were no significant differences in mean readability across readability indices or author type. None of the 30 records met the reading level recommendations as set by the NIH and AMA. In order to enhance accessibility and ultimately improve AUD health outcomes, it is recommended that patient-oriented resources be crafted with adherence to these guidelines. Consequently, future AUD resources ought to prioritize the enhancement of their readability.
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.