ArticleOTO open
Analysis of Internet-Based Written Materials on Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea.
Article in OTO open. 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.
- Appraisal of Readability in Patient-Facing Resources for the Inspire Hypoglossal Nerve Implant.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has many treatment options and the Internet is an important resource for patients. The quality of information reviewed by patients about sleep surgery is unknown. We assessed readability, accessibility, actionability, and quality of online content for OSA surgeries. Study Design: Review of webpages by 2 independent reviewers. Setting: Internet-based search. Methods: We queried Google for sleep apnea surgery and included top 100 English language webpages. Content was scored by 2 reviewers using the Flesch-Kincaid (FK), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), JAMA benchmarks, CDC Clear Communication Index (CCI), and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) understandability and actionability scores. Results: Eighty-seven webpages were evaluated including 40 hosted by academic hospitals, 23 private practices, 10 general knowledge, 4 national organizations, 3 industry, 3 non-profit hospitals, and 2 government-sponsored. Mean CCI ranged from 22.7% to 84.9%. No sources met the 90% CCI cutoff. Average PEMAT understandability score was 80.4% (±7.8; 62.5%-93.3%), with 91% meeting the 70% standard score. Average PEMAT-actionability score was 38.4% (±16.5; 0%-70%), with 5% meeting the standard score. The average readability of webpages was the 10th grade reading level. Only 5% of pages met the recommended 6th grade reading level or lower. Only 21% of pages addressed surgical risks. Conclusion: Most online resources regarding OSA surgery do not meet recommended standards for communication. Providers should be aware of limitations of materials when counseling patients on sleep surgery treatments. Future patient education resources should meet health communication and readability standards.
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.