ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating Turkish Readability and Quality of Strabismus-Related Websites.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Readability of patient information leaflets for commonly used medicines in the UK, Germany and Türkiye: a cross-sectional document analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Comment on "Expert evaluation of GPT-4o and Gemini responses to patient questions on carotid endarterectomy".Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Prevention of aminoglycoside-induced outer hair cell loss by silencing CaMKKβ in an acute mouse model.Hearing research · 2025Article
- Article
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
Background This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the readability of strabismus-related websites and the quality of their content. Methodology This cross-sectional study evaluated the websites on strabismus disease using Ateşman and Bezirci-Yilmaz's readability formulas, which have been scientifically verified to be effective for Turkish people. The study picked texts from the first 50 websites that appeared on the screen after typing "strabismus treatment" into the Google search engine based on their Turkish reading level and information reliability. In this study, 41 of the first 50 websites were reviewed. Furthermore, two separate senior ophthalmologists evaluated the JAMA and DISCERN indexes, as well as the credibility of the content on these sites. Results The Bezirci-Yilmaz readability index indicated that the websites were readable for individuals with an average education level of 10.5 ± 2.3 years. The websites scored an average of 55.2 ± 7.9 on the Ateşman readability formula, indicating that they were readable for students in the 11-12th grade. The websites had an average JAMA score of 0.8 ± 0.7 points and a DISCERN score of 34.2 ± 8.6 points, indicating low-quality content. Conclusions The readability of websites providing information regarding strabismus was significantly higher than Turkey's average educational level. Websites should not only be designed to be easy to read so that strabismus patients may learn about their condition but should also provide higher-quality strabismus content.
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.