ArticleCureus2024
Readability and Quality of Online Patient Education Materials Concerning Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of surgical recommendation algorithms in hallux valgus cases using ChatGPT models: an artificial intelligence approach based on 50 simulated scenarios.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2026Article
- Quality and readability of patient information on robotic-assisted hip arthroplasty.Annals of joint · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to assess the quality of online patient educational materials regarding posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. Methods We performed a search of the top-50 results on Google® (terms: "posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction," "PCL reconstruction," "posterior cruciate ligament surgery," and "PCL surgery") and subsequently filtered to rule out duplicated/inaccessible websites or those containing only videos (67 websites included). Readability was assessed using six formulas: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKG), Gunning Fog Score (GF), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI); quality was assessed using the JAMA benchmark criteria and recording the presence of the HONcode seal. Results The mean FRE was 49.3 (SD 11.2) and the mean FKG level was 8.09. These results were confirmed by the other readability formulae (average: GF 8.9; SMOG Index 7.3; CLI 14.7; ARI 6.5). A HONcode seal was available for 7.4 % of websites. The average JAMA score was 1.3. Conclusion The reading level of online patient materials concerning PCL reconstruction is too high for the average reader, requiring high comprehension skills. Practice implications Online medical information has been shown to influence patient healthcare decision processes. Patient-oriented educational materials should be clear and easy to understand.
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.