ArticleCureus2024
Improving the Readability of Patient Education Materials in Physical Therapy.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis of Readability Levels of Hand Surgery Patient Information on the ASSH Website and Artificial Intelligence.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Optimizing ChatGPT Applying prompt engineering to frequently asked questions in urologic oncology.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Article
- Quality of artificial intelligence-generated responses on pediatric celiac disease: Comparative assessment of Open AI ChatGPT and Google Gemini.JPGN reports · 2026Article
- ChatGPT: the essential patient's companion for transesophageal echocardiogram education.Journal of ultrasound · 2025Article
- Readability of Public-Facing Urologic Oncology Trial Summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.Urology practice · 2025Article
- Readability of patient education materials for lumbar disc replacement.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Enhancing the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials Using Large Language Models: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Online physical activity resources for individuals with rheumatoid arthritis: an environmental scan and quality appraisal.BMJ open · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Printed patient educational materials (PEM) are often written above the recommended sixth- to eighth-grade reading levels, resulting in decreased client understanding and subsequent poor health literacy. Researchers have demonstrated that it is possible to improve readability to enhance clients' understanding and health literacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the readability of physical therapy (PT) PEM with and without modifications for improvement. Methods A convenience sample of 38 PT PEM of at least 10 sentences was obtained from a large suburban hospital system in the Midwestern region of the United States. Original and three modified versions (exclusion, revision, and combined exclusion/revision of words with >3 syllables) of the documents were assessed with the Simple Measure of "Gobbledygook" (SMOG). All document means were compared to the recommended reading levels, and the original document means were compared with modified conditions. Results A majority of the documents were above an eighth-grade reading level. All modified conditions resulted in statistically significant reading level decreases, but only the combined modified condition decreased to the eighth-grade level. Conclusion Even with modifications, most PEM were above the recommended reading levels. Additional methods for improving readability and increased education about health literacy for healthcare professionals may be necessary to improve client comprehension.
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.