ArticleJTCVS open2024
Assessment of printed lung cancer surgery patient education materials in the United States.
Article in JTCVS open, 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.
- Article
- Privacy policies for FDA-authorized or FDA-recognized digital therapeutics impose high digital health literacy demands: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Improving lung cancer decision-making using a conversation tool (iDECIDE): a stepped wedge pragmatic clinical trial.Future oncology (London, England) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Well-designed patient education materials (PEMs) increase health literacy, which has been linked to better surgical patient outcomes. The quality of lung cancer surgery PEMs is unknown, however. Here we assessed printed lung cancer surgery PEMs for readability, understandability, actionability, and accessibility. Methods: Various lung cancer programs throughout the United States were contacted for their lung cancer surgery PEMs. The readability of the received materials was calculated using 6 readability tests. Four thoracic surgeon-advanced practice practitioner dyads scored the PEMs for understandability, actionability, and accessibility using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the Accessibility Assessment Tool, with the recommended minimum threshold of 70%. One-sample Results: Out of 34 institutions contacted, 18 (52.9%) provided PEMs. The average reading level of the PEMs ranged from 7th grade to 11th grade, significantly exceeding the recommended 6th grade health literacy threshold ( Conclusions: PEMs are written at reading levels that are too advanced for patients. Although PEMs scored well in understandability, actionability, and accessibility, analysis of individual items revealed the need for improvement, including the use of shorter sentences, more visual aids and summaries, and expansion of language translations.
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.