ArticleThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2024
Health Literacy in Shoulder Arthroscopy: A Quantitative Assessment of the Understandability and Readability of Online Patient Education Material.
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 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.
- Challenges of using generative artificial intelligence for diabetes patient education: a cross-platform analysis of the quality, readability, and actionability of text generated by large language models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Examining Health Literacy and Appropriateness of Commercially Developed Patient Education Materials for Adults Living With Diabetes on the U.S./Mexico Border.Clinical nursing research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and American Medical Association (AMA) recommend that online health information be written at a maximum 6th grade reading level. The aim was to evaluate online resources regarding shoulder arthroscopy utilizing measures of readability, understandability, and actionability, using syntax reading grade level and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT-P). Methods: An online Google™ search utilizing "shoulder arthroscopy" was performed. From the top 50 results, websites directed at educating patients were included. News and scientific articles, audiovisual materials, industry websites, and unrelated materials were excluded. Readability was calculated using objective algorithms: Flesch-Kincaid Grade-Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) grade, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Gunning-Fog Index (GFI). The PEMAT-P was used to assess understandability and actionability, with a 70% score threshold. Scores were compared across academic institutions, private practices, and commercial health publishers. The correlation between search rank and readability, understandability, and actionability was calculated. Results: Two independent searches yielded 53 websites, with 44 (83.02%) meeting inclusion criteria. No mean readability score performed below a 10th grade reading level. Only one website scored at or below 6th grade reading level. Mean understandability and actionability scores were 63.02%±12.09 and 29.77%±20.63, neither of which met the PEMAT threshold. Twelve (27.27%) websites met the understandability threshold, while none met the actionability threshold. Institution categories scored similarly in understandability (61.71%, 62.68%, 63.67%) among academic, private practice, and commercial health publishers respectively (p=0.9536). No readability or PEMAT score correlated with search rank. Conclusion: Online shoulder arthroscopy patient education materials score poorly in readability, understandability, and actionability. One website scored at the NIH and AMA recommended reading level, and 27.27% of websites scored above the 70% PEMAT score for understandability. None met the actionability threshold. Future efforts should improve online resources to optimize patient education and facilitate informed decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38919367PMC11195902What 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.