ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2024
The readability of online patient education materials on maxillomandibular advancement surgery.
Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Online Resources for Migraine Surgery: Readability and Patient Understanding.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Patient Educational Materials for Pheochromocytoma Exceed Recommended Readability Level: An Analysis Across Three Independent Reading Instruments.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Readability in Patient Education Materials for Primary Hyperparathyroidism.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- The Online Landscape of Brazilian Butt Lift Information: Readability, Quality, and Traffic Analysis.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesMaxillomandibular advancement (MMA) is an effective surgical option for patients suffering from obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). As a relatively new treatment option, patients may turn to the Internet to learn more. However, online patient education materials (OPEMs) on MMA may be written at a higher literacy level than recommended for patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the readability of OPEMs on MMA.
methodsA Google search of "maxillomandibular advancement" was performed, and the first 100 results were screened. Websites that met eligibility criteria were analyzed for their readability using the Automated Readability Index (ARI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog (GF), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and compared to the recommended sixth-grade reading level using one-tailed t tests. Readability scores were compared based on the type of website, including hospitals/universities or physician clinics, using ANOVA tests.
resultsThe mean (SD) for ARI, CLI, FKGL, GF, and SMOG was 11.91 (2.43), 13.42 (1.81), 11.91 (2.06), 14.32 (2.34), and 13.99 (1.56), respectively. All readability scores were significantly higher than a sixth-grade reading level (p < 0.001). After comparing readability scores between different website types (university/hospital, clinic, and other), there was no statistical difference found.
conclusionsThe available OPEMs on MMA surgery for OSA are above the recommended sixth-grade reading level. Identifying and reducing the gap between the reading levels of OPEMs and the reading level of the patient are needed to encourage a more active role, informed decisions, and better patient satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38062224What 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.