Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37842495›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Lower Back Pain Imaging: A Readability Analysis.

Michael J Valentine, Gannon Cottone, Hunter D Kramer, Ankur Kayastha, James Kim, Nicholas J Pettinelli, Robert C Kramer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michael J ValentineCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Kansas City University, Kansas City, USA.
Gannon CottoneCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Kansas City University, Kansas City, USA.
Hunter D KramerCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Kansas City University, Kansas City, USA.
Ankur KayasthaCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Kansas City University, Kansas City, USA.
James KimCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Kansas City University, Kansas City, USA.
Nicholas J PettinelliMedicine, Kansas City University, Kansas City, USA.
Robert C KramerHand Surgery, Beaumont Bone and Joint Institute, Beaumont, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe internet provides access to a myriad of educational health-related resources which are an invaluable source of information for patients. Lower back pain is a common complaint that is discussed extensively online. In this article, we aim to determine if the most commonly accessed articles about lower back pain imaging use language that can be understood by most patients. According to the American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institute of Health (NIH), this corresponds to a sixth-grade reading level.

methodsOnline searches were conducted from the most commonly used search engine, Google, to assess the present state of readability on radiograph imaging for LBP. Then the top 20 populated URL links from each search were utilized based on "health & fitness" search trends and click-through rates (CTRs). The readability of various websites was evaluated with WebFX online software that analyzed the unique websites' text when put into reader view on Firefox web browser version 116.0.3 (64-bit). Evaluation occurred via five common readability indices: the Automated Readability Index (ARI), the Coleman Liau Index (CLI), the SMOG index, the Gunning Fog Score Index (GFSI), and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level Index (FKGLI). In addition, the Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease Index (FKREI) was also used but was excluded from the calculation due to its measuring scale outside of US grade levels. The number of samples was analyzed via health and fitness-specific CTR from an open-access database from July 2022 to July 2023. This was used to calculate the number of persons clicking and visiting positional URLs (first URL to the 20th URL) from each unique keyword search and the rational criteria for selecting the first 20 websites for each query.

resultsOnline material that included LBP imaging information was calculated to have an overall readability score of 10.745 out of the 23 websites obtained from unique searches. The range was a mean readability score of 8 to 14. Notably, 17 websites were excluded from a total of 40 websites due to duplication of the same data (URLs that resulted from both unique searches) and accessibility requiring payment (specifically, an UpToDate link). A readability score of 10.745 refers to an 11th-grade reading level. That is to say, the most commonly visited sites on Google that contain information about lower back pain imaging are, on average, five grade levels higher than the sixth-grade reading level recommended by the AMA and the NIH.

conclusionsMost internet content regarding lower back pain imaging is written at a reading level that is above the recommended limit defined by the AMA and NIH. To improve education about lower back pain imaging and the patient-physician relationship, we recommend guiding patients to online material that contains a reading level at the sixth-grade level as suggested by the AMA and NIH.

Indexed as

back painclick-through ratehealth literacyimaginglower back painlumbar painonline informationradiographradiographyreadability

Identifiers

PMID37842495
PMCPMC10575676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.