ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2024
Readability and quality assessment of online patient education materials for spinal and epidural anesthesia.
Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 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.
- Evaluating the readability, understandability, quality, and popularity of online materials about epilepsy in children.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Anesthesia for cesarean delivery in the era of artificial intelligence: a narrative review.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
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
purposeGuidelines recommend that health-related information for patients should be written at or below the sixth-grade level. We sought to evaluate the readability level and quality of online patient education materials regarding epidural and spinal anesthesia.
methodsWe evaluated webpages with content written specifically regarding either spinal or epidural anesthesia, identified using 11 relevant search terms, with seven commonly used readability formulas: Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), and New Dale-Chall (NDC). Two evaluators assessed the quality of the reading materials using the Brief DISCERN tool.
resultsWe analyzed 261 webpages. The mean (standard deviation) readability scores were: FKGL = 8.8 (1.9), GFI = 11.2 (2.2), CLI = 10.3 (1.9), ARI = 8.1 (2.2), SMOG = 11.6 (1.6), FRE = 55.7 (10.8), and NDC = 5.4 (1.0). The mean grade level was higher than the recommended sixth-grade level when calculated with six of the seven readability formulas. The average Brief DISCERN score was 16.0.
conclusionReadability levels of online patient education materials pertaining to epidural and spinal anesthesia are higher than recommended. When we evaluated the quality of the information using a validated tool, the materials were found to be just below the threshold of what is considered good quality. Authors of educational materials should provide not only readable but also good-quality information to enhance patient understanding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38773007What 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.