ReviewBMJ open2024
Study to evaluate the readability and visual appearance of online resources for blunt chest trauma: an evaluation of online resources using mixed methods.
Review in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBlunt chest trauma (BCT) is characterised by forceful and non-penetrative impact to the chest region. Increased access to the internet has led to online healthcare resources becoming used by the public to educate themselves about medical conditions. This study aimed to determine whether online resources for BCT are at an appropriate readability level and visual appearance for the public.
designWe undertook a (1) a narrative overview assessment of the website; (2) a visual assessment of the identified website material content using an adapted framework of predetermined key criteria based on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services toolkit and (3) a readability assessment using five readability scores and the Flesch reading ease score using Readable software. DATA SOURCES: Using a range of key search terms, we searched Google, Bing and Yahoo websites on 9 October 2023 for online resources about BCT.
resultsWe identified and assessed 85 websites. The median visual assessment score for the identified websites was 22, with a range of -14 to 37. The median readability score generated was 9 (14-15 years), with a range of 4.9-15.8. There was a significant association between the visual assessment and readability scores with a tendency for websites with lower readability scores having higher scores for the visual assessment (Spearman's r=-0.485; p<0.01). The median score for Flesch reading ease was 63.9 (plain English) with a range of 21.1-85.3.
conclusionsAlthough the readability levels and visual appearance were acceptable for the public for many websites, many of the resources had much higher readability scores than the recommended level (8-10) and visually were poor.Better use of images would improve the appearance of websites further. Less medical terminology and shorter word and sentence length would also allow the public to comprehend the contained information more easily.
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.