ArticleResearch and reports in urology2024
Clear as Mud: Readability Scores in Cloacal Exstrophy Literature and Its Treatment.
Article in Research and reports in urology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study examines the readability of online medical information regarding cloacal exstrophy (CE). We hypothesize that inappropriate levels of comprehension are required in these resources, leading to poor understanding and confusion amongst caregivers. Methods: The Google and Bing search engines were used to search the terms "cloacal exstrophy" and "cloacal exstrophy treatment". The first 100 results for each were collected. Each webpage was analyzed for readability using four independent validated scoring systems: the Gunning-Fog index (GFI), SMOG grade (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook), Dale-Chall index (DCI), and the Flesch-Kincaid grade (FKG). Results: Forty-seven unique webpages fit the inclusion criteria. Mean readability scores across all websites were GFI, 14.6; SMOG score, 10.8; DCI, 9.3; and FKG, 11.8, correlating to adjusted grade levels of college sophomore, 11th grade, college, and 11th grade, respectively. There were significant differences across all readability formulas. Non-profit websites were significantly less readable than institutional and commercial webpages (GFI p = 0.012, SMOG p = 0.018, DCI p = 0.021, FKG p = 0.0093). Conclusion: Caregiver-directed health information regarding CE and its treatment available online is written at the 11th grade reading level or above. Online resources pertaining to CE must be simplified to be effective.
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.