ArticleClinical and experimental nephrology2024
Evaluating the understandability and actionability of online CKD educational materials.
Article in Clinical and experimental nephrology, 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.
- Comprehensiveness, quality, and readability of non-invasive prenatal testing information on Japanese medical institution websites.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Privacy policies for FDA-authorized or FDA-recognized digital therapeutics impose high digital health literacy demands: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessing the understandability and actionability of online resources for patients undergoing hemodialysis.Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2025Article
- Evaluating Online and Offline Health Information With the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have not fully determined whether online education materials on chronic kidney disease (CKD) for Japanese patients are easy to understand and help change their behavior. Therefore, this study quantitatively assessed the understandability and actionability of online CKD education materials.
methodsIn September 2021, we searched Google and Yahoo Japan using the keywords "kidney," "kidney disease," "CKD," "chronic kidney disease," and "renal failure" to identify 538 webpages. We used the Japanese version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), ranging from 0 to 100%, to evaluate the understandability and actionability of webpages. We set the cutoff point to 70%.
resultsOf the 186 materials included, the overall understandability and actionability were 61.5% (± 16.3%) and 38.7% (± 30.6%), respectively. The materials were highly technical in their terminology and lacked clear and concise charts and illustrations to encourage action. Compared to lifestyle modification materials on CKD overview, symptoms/signs, examination, and treatment scored significantly lower on the PEMAT. In addition, the materials produced by medical institutions and academic organizations scored significantly lower than those produced by for-profit companies.
conclusionMedical institutions and academic organizations are encouraged to use plain language and to attach explanations of medical terms when preparing materials for patients. They are also expected to improve visual aids to promote healthy behaviors.
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.