ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Assessment of online patient education material for eye cancers: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nationwide evaluation of readability, quality, and cultural sensitivity of online brain cancer education materials in the United States.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- Online resources for strabismus: an evaluation of readability, complexity, and suitability.Strabismus · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess online American patient education material (PEM) related to eye cancers in order to determine the quality of the content and appropriateness of the contents' reading level as it relates to the American population. PEMs were extracted from fifteen American cancer and ophthalmology associations and evaluated for their reading level using ten validated readability scales. PEMs then had all words extracted and evaluated for their difficulty and familiarity. The quality of the PEMS were assessed according to DISCERN, Heath On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONCode), and JAMA benchmarks. Overall, online PEMs from the associations were written at a 11th grade reading level, which is above the recommended 6th grade reading level. The difficult word analysis identified that 26% of words were unfamiliar. Only one of the fifteen association held a HONCode certification while no organization met the standards of all four JAMA benchmarks. The average score for DISCERN was 2.4 out of a total of 5 for the fifteen questions related to treatment option information quality. Consideration should be made to create PEMs at an appropriate grade reading level to encourage health literacy and ultimately promote health outcomes. Associations should also focus on incorporating easily identifiable quality indicators to allow patients to better identify reputable resources.
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.