ArticleStrabismus2025
Online resources for strabismus: an evaluation of readability, complexity, and suitability.
Article in Strabismus, 2025. 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.
- Applications of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Strabismus Surgery Video-Based Education.Ophthalmology science · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOver one-third of US adults have never attended college, creating a large disparity in the readability of online health materials. Decreased health literacy and accessibility to medical information negatively affect patients and well-informed patients are more likely to experience better health outcomes (1). The NIH and AMA recommend patient-intended education materials be written at a sixth-grade reading level (2), therefore, this study analyzed the accessibility of the top ten web pages for "strabismus."
methodsThe first ten online resources returned in a Google search for "strabismus" were analyzed. Web pages were then assessed for the readability level (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook), complexity (PMOSE/IKIRSCH), and suitability (Suitability Assessment of Materials). Two independent raters assessed the complexity and suitability.
resultsReadability analysis of the strabismus resources revealed an average reading grade level of 11.4 ± 1.07. There was a statistical difference in the reading grade level between the .com and .gov, and the .org and .com websites ( DISCUSSION: On average, online resources for strabismus have a low complexity level. However, the majority of the top ten articles reviewed are above the recommended literacy level, indicating a need for revision. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The vast amount of available online health resources have significantly affected the field of medicine. Most patients research their disease process using online sources and many reference this material before their initial ophthalmologic consultation. Considering that more than half of Americans read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level and that the AMA/NIH recommend all patient-intended materials to be written above this level, there is a health literacy disconnect. This limits patients' ability to educate themselves about their medical conditions and participate in informed conversations regarding their healthcare. Patients who are unable to interpret health information accurately have increased rates of hospitalization, develop more medical conditions, and experience a higher rate of mortality. This preventable impediment to informed healthcare care magnifies the urgency for easily readable online resources that are formatted in a manner that is clear to understand and suitable for patients with lower health literacy.
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.