ArticleThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2024
Carpal Tunnel Surgery: Can Patients Read, Understand, and Act on Online Educational Resources?
Article in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Use of Large Language Models in Improving the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Peripheral Nerve Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessing the Readability, Quality, and Reliability of Online Patient Information Materials Related to Sarcopenia.Cureus · 2025Article
- Augmenting Patient Education in Hand Surgery-Evaluation of ChatGPT as an Informational Tool in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients often access online resources to educate themselves prior to undergoing elective surgery such as carpal tunnel release (CTR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate available online resources regarding CTR on objective measures of readability (syntax reading grade-level), understandability (ability to convey key messages in a comprehensible manner), and actionability (providing actions the reader may take). Methods: The study conducted two independent Google searches for "Carpal Tunnel Surgery" and among the top 50 results, analyzed articles aimed at educating patients about CTR. Readability was assessed using six different indices: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman Liau Index, Automated Readability Index. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool evaluated understandability and actionability on a 0-100% scale. Spearman's correlation assessed relationships between these metrics and Google search ranks, with p<0.05 indicating statistical significance. Results: Of the 39 websites meeting the inclusion criteria, the mean readability grade level exceeded 9, with the lowest being 9.4 ± 1.5 (SMOG index). Readability did not correlate with Google search ranking (lowest p=0.25). Mean understandability and actionability were 59% ± 15 and 26% ± 24, respectively. Only 28% of the articles used visual aids, and few provided concise summaries or clear, actionable steps. Notably, lower grade reading levels were linked to higher actionability scores (p ≤ 0.02 in several indices), but no readability metrics significantly correlated with understandability. Google search rankings showed no significant association with either understandability or actionability scores. Conclusion: Online educational materials for CTR score poorly in readability, understandability, and actionability. Quality metrics do not appear to affect Google search rankings. The poor quality metric scores found in our study highlight a need for hand specialists to improve online patient resources, especially in an era emphasizing shared decision-making in healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38919356PMC11195886What 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.