ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Readability of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Used in Plastic Surgery.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcomes are essential to understanding success in plastic surgery procedures, many that aim to improve quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be written at or below the sixth-grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association. This study aimed to evaluate the readability of plastic surgery PROMs. Methods: We conducted a literature review to identify validated, commonly used PROMs in plastic surgery. We extracted PROMs' text and instructions and analyzed readability using different approaches that estimate the grade level required to understand. Our primary outcome was the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, which detects word complexity and expects 100% comprehension at the grade level rating assigned. We also included the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Coleman-Liau index, and automated readability index. Results: Forty-three PROMs met the inclusion criteria. The mean SMOG index was 8.2 (SD = 1.3), indicating an eighth-grade reading level. Mean reading grade levels measured by the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Coleman-Liau index, and automated readability index ranged from third to sixth grade, although these may underestimate readability difficulties. Only 6 (14%) PROMs had a SMOG index at or below the sixth-grade level. PROM instructions had significantly higher reading levels than the questions/responses for all readability indexes ( Conclusions: PROMs used in plastic surgery, including the instructions, exceed the reading level recommended by the American Medical Association. This may limit comprehension and accurate completion and compromise validity and reliability. PROMs should be written and designed to be accessible to patients of all literacy levels.
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.