ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating the Readability of Online Blood Cancer Education Materials Across Different Readability Measures.
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.
- Supporting patient understanding of cervical and ovarian cancer: how well does AI perform?Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026Article
- An analysis of AI platforms: Can AI provide genetics education?Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Myopia Management.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Dapagliflozin Ameliorates Doxorubicin-Induced Chemobrain and Cognitive Abnormalities in Rats: Modulation of AKT/GSK-3β and Wnt/β-Catenin Pathways.Neurochemical research · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association recommend patient education materials (EMs) be at or below the sixth-grade reading level. The American Cancer Society, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network have accurate blood cancer EMs. Methods One hundred one (101) blood cancer EMs from the above organizations were assessed using the following: Flesch Reading Ease Formula (FREF), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index (SMOG), and the Coleman-Liau Index (CLI). Results Only 3.96% of patient EMs scored at or below the seventh-grade reading level in all modalities. Healthcare professional education materials (HPEMs) averaged around the college to graduate level. For leukemia and lymphoma patient EMs, there were significant differences for FKGL vs. SMOG, FKGL vs. GFI, FKGL vs. CLI, SMOG vs. CLI, and GFI vs. CLI. For HPEMs, there were significant differences for FKGL vs. GFI and GFI vs. CLI. Conclusion The majority of patient EMs were above the seventh-grade reading level. A lack of easily readable patient EMs could lead to a poor understanding of disease and, thus, adverse health outcomes. Overall, patient EMs should not replace physician counseling. Physicians must close the gaps in patients' understanding throughout their cancer treatment.
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.