ArticleEndocrine2024
Lost in translation: evaluating the readability of online patient information for neuroendocrine tumors.
Article in Endocrine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionRecent data show that many patients with NETs do not receive sufficient education regarding their diagnosis and therefore tend to search for information or literature independently. We sought to assess the readability of OPI for neuroendocrine tumors and to analyze compliance to NIH guidelines for OPI (readability level 8th grade or below).
methodsWe performed a Google search to compile a list of the top ten OPI websites using the search term "neuroendocrine tumor". We calculated median readability scores for each website across the 9 scales as well as overall readability scores across all sites.
resultsA total of 10 websites were included for analysis. 6/10 (60%) of the websites belonged to academic institutions, while 2/10 (20%) were from non-profit organizations, and 1 each were a government website (10%) and patient advocacy organization (10%). The median (with interquartile range or IQR) readability score for all websites across the nine readability tests was 9.6 (IQR 8.8-11.2).
conclusionOur findings underscore the need to develop online patient education material that is readable and therefore easily understandable for patients and caregivers dealing with this unique group of malignancies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38010471What 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.