ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Readability of online patient education material for foregut surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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.
- Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Endoscopic Spine Surgery.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
- ChatGPT and other large language models in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multidimensional audit of reliability, quality, and readability.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth literacy is the ability of individuals to use basic health information and services to make well-informed decisions. Low health literacy among surgical patients has been associated with nonadherence to preoperative and/or discharge instructions as well as poor comprehension of surgery. It likely poses as a barrier to patients considering foregut surgery which requires an understanding of different treatment options and specific diet instructions. The objective of this study was to assess and compare the readability of online patient education materials (PEM) for foregut surgery.
methodsUsing Google, the terms "anti-reflux surgery, "GERD surgery," and "foregut surgery" were searched and a total of 30 webpages from universities and national organizations were selected. The readability of the text was assessed with seven instruments: Flesch Reading Ease formula (FRE), Gunning Fog (GF), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Coleman Liau Index (CL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Automated Readability Index (ARI), and Linsear Write Formula (LWF). Mean readability scores were calculated with standard deviations. We performed a qualitative analysis gathering characteristics such as, type of information (preoperative or postoperative), organization, use of multimedia, inclusion of a version in another language.
resultsThe overall average readability of the top PEM for foregut surgery was 12th grade. There was only one resource at the recommended sixth grade reading level. Nearly half of PEM included some form of multimedia.
conclusionsThe American Medical Association and National Institute of Health have recommended that PEMs to be written at the 5th-6th grade level. The majority of online PEM for foregut surgery is above the recommended reading level. This may be a barrier for patients seeking foregut surgery. Surgeons should be aware of the potential gaps in understanding of their patients to help them make informed decisions and improve overall health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39009725What 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.