ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2023
Readability and reliability of online patient education materials about statins.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are AI chatbots ready for chikungunya public education? Evidence on validity, reliability, and readability.BMC public health · 2026Article
- A centralized decision-making support consultation response for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: benchmark performance of generative large language models in terms of reliability and readability.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The information challenge in public health crises: a study on the reliability and readability of information provided by large language model for thunderstorm asthma.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for myocardial infarction public health education: a comparative study on information quality, transparency and readability.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of validity, reliability, and readability of AI chatbots for gestational diabetes mellitus: a multi-model comparative study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- From Isolation to Information: Launching an Online Community for Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis, Primary Biliary Cholangitis, and Autoimmune Hepatitis in Romania-A Descriptive Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Enhancing the Readability of Online Pediatric Cataract Education Materials: A Comparative Study of Large Language Models.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Are we being forthright with the patients about vertebral body tethering? Quality, contemporaneity, and readability analysis of the online content about vertebral body tethering.Spine deformity · 2025Article
- Approaches to Reach Trustworthy Patient Education: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Readability Metrics in Patient Education: Where Do We Innovate?Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Article
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
Abstract
Objective: Statins are the cornerstone for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. Patients often consult online patient education materials (OPEMs) to inform medical decision-making. We therefore aimed to assess the readability and reliability of OPEMs related to statins. Methods: A total of 17 statin-related terms were queried using an online search engine to identify the top 20 search results for each statin-related term. Each OPEM was then grouped into the following categories based on 2 independent reviewers: government OPEMs (national, state, or local government agencies); healthcare/nonprofit OPEMs (major health systems and nonprofit organizations with a specific cardiovascular health focus); industry/commercial OPEMs (pharmaceutical manufacturers and online pharmacies); lay press OPEMs (healthcare-oriented news organizations); and dictionary/encyclopedia OPEMs. Grade-level readability for each OPEM was calculated using 5 standard readability metrics and compared with AMA-recommended readability recommendations. Reliability of each OPEM was evaluated using the JAMA benchmark criteria for online health information and certification from Health on the Net (HONCode). Results: A total of 340 websites were identified across the 17 statin search terms. There were 211 statin OPEMs after excluding non-OPEM results; 172 OPEMs had unique content. Statin OPEM readability exceeded the recommended 6th grade AMA reading level (average reading grade level of 10.9). The average JAMA benchmark criteria score was 2.13 (on a scale of 0-4, with higher scores indicating higher reliability), and only 60% of statin OPEMs were HONCode-certified. There was an inverse association between readability and reliability. The most readable results were from industry and commercial sources, while the most reliable sites were from lay press sources. Conclusions: Statin OPEMs are written at an overall averaging reading grade level of 10.9. There was an inverse association between readability and reliability. Lack of accessible, high-quality online health information may contribute to statin nonadherence.
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.