ArticleCureus2024
An Analysis of the Readability of Online Sarcoidosis Resources.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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 Sarcoidosis is an inflammatory disease characterized by the formation of noncaseating granulomas in multiple organ systems. The presentation can vary widely; although some patients with sarcoidosis can be asymptomatic, sarcoidosis can also present in others with symptomatic multiorgan system involvement. Considering the potential severity of the disease, patients need to be well-informed about sarcoidosis to better manage their health. This study aims to assess the readability levels of online resources about sarcoidosis. Methods We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. The term "sarcoidosis" was searched online using both Google and Bing to find websites written in English. Each website was categorized by type: academic, commercial, government, nonprofit, and physician. The readability scores for each website were calculated using six different readability tests: the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease (FKRE), Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Gunning fog score (GFS), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), automated readability index (ARI), and Coleman-Liau index (CLI). FKRE gives a score that corresponds to the difficulty of the text, while the remaining tests give a score that corresponds to a grade level in terms of reading ability. A one-sample t-test was used to compare all test scores with the national recommended standard of a sixth-grade reading level. Our null hypothesis was that the readability scores of the websites searched would not differ statistically significantly from the sixth-grade reading level and that there would be no significant differences across website categories. To evaluate the difference between the categories of websites, ANOVA testing was used. Results Thirty-four websites were analyzed. Each of the six readability tests for the websites had an average score, which corresponded to being significantly harder to read than the nationally recommended sixth-grade reading level (p<0.001). None of the mean readability scores showed a statistically significant difference across the five different website categories. Conclusions This is the first study, to our knowledge, to examine the readability of online English resources on sarcoidosis and calculate standardized readability scores for them. It implies that the online English material for sarcoidosis is above the health literacy recommended reading levels for patients. There is a need to simplify the material to be easier to read for patients.
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.