ArticleJSES international2023
Health literacy in rotator cuff repair: a quantitative assessment of the understandability of online patient education material.
Article in JSES international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality, understandability, and actionability of Arabic web-based content on periodontal and related oral surgical procedures: a cross-sectional infodemiological study.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- Digital Therapeutic Content for Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language model responses to patient questions on ulnar collateral ligament repair.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Article
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence-Generated Responses to Patient Questions Regarding Orthobiologic Injections.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing the Readability, Quality, and Reliability of Online Patient Information Materials Related to Sarcopenia.Cureus · 2025Article
- Assessing the accuracy and readability of ChatGPT 4.0's original and simplified responses to common patient questions regarding periacetabular osteotomy.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
- Can popular AI large language models provide reliable answers to frequently asked questions about rotator cuff tears?JSES international · 2025Article
- Oral Diabetes Medication Videos on Douyin: Analysis of Information Quality and User Comment Attitudes.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- A cross-sectional quantitative analysis of the readability and quality of online resources regarding thumb carpometacarpal joint replacement surgery.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of ChatGPT versions in informing patients with rotator cuff injuries.JSES international · 2024Article
- Appraisal of ChatGPT's responses to common patient questions regarding Tommy John surgery.Shoulder & elbow · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Quality, Readability, and Activity of Online Information on Brain Arteriovenous Malformations.Cureus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommend online health information be written at a 6th grade or lower reading level for clear understanding. While syntax reading grade level has previously been utilized, those analyses do not determine whether readers are processing key information (understandability) or identifying available actions to take (actionability). The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT-P) is a method to measure the understandability and actionability of online patient education materials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate online resources regarding rotator cuff repair utilizing measures of readability, understandability, and actionability. Methods: The search term "rotator cuff surgery" was used in two independent online searches to obtain the top 50 search results. The readability of included resources was quantified using valid objective algorithms: Flesch-Kincaid Grade-Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook grade, Coleman-Liau Index, and Gunning Fog Index. The PEMAT-P form was used to assess actionability and understandability. Results: A total of 49 unique websites were identified to meet our inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level graded materials at a 10.6 (approximately a 10th grade reading level), with only two websites offering materials at a 6th grade reading level or below. The remaining readability studies graded the mean reading level at high school or greater, with the Gunning Fog Index scoring at a collegiate reading level. Mean understandability and actionability scores were 64.6% and 29.5%, respectively, falling below the 70% PEMAT score threshold for both scales. Fourteen (28.6%) websites were above the threshold for understandability, while no website (0%) scored above the 70% threshold for actionability. When comparing source categories, commercial health publishers provided websites that scored higher in understandability ( Conclusion: Overall, online patient education materials related to rotator cuff surgery scored poorly with respect to readability, understandability, and actionability. Only two (4.1%) of the patient education websites scored at the American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommended reading level. Fourteen (28.6%) scored above the 70% PEMAT score for understandability; however, no website met the threshold for actionability.
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.