ArticleJMIR research protocols2025
Evaluating Online and Offline Health Information With the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool: Protocol for a Systematic Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Readability, Quality, Understandability, and Actionability of ChatGPT Generated GI Patient Education Versus AGA Patient Center.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- What Provider Frequently Asked Questions Miss: Evaluating Unmet Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Information Needs Through Comparison of Online Community Posts Using Large Language Model-Assisted Semantic Analysis in a Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Leveraging AI for Analysis of Digital Health Information on Cancer Prevention Among Arab Youth and Adults: Content Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of mainstream large language models in cataract science popularization Q&A: a comparative study of readability, quality, and educational suitability.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Decoupled quality and readability in skin cancer education from large language models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality of online patient education materials for gastric adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of large language models in delivering guideline-compliant recommendations for topical NSAID use in musculoskeletal pain: a multidimensional analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
- Quality assessment of patient-facing urologic telesurgery content using validated tools.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Response to "Artificial Intelligence-Prompted Explanations of Common Primary Care Diagnoses".PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.) · 2025Article
- Accuracy of large language models in interpreting urological clinical guidelines: a comparative study with expert evaluation.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
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
backgroundThe Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) is a reliable and validated instrument for assessing the understandability and actionability of patient education materials. It has been applied across diverse cultural and linguistic contexts, enabling cross-field and cross-national material quality comparisons. Accumulated evidence from studies using the PEMAT over the past decade underscores its potential impact on patient and public action.
objectiveThis systematic review aims to investigate how the quality of patient education materials has been assessed using the PEMAT.
methodsThis review protocol follows PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols) guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science Core Collection will be searched systematically for articles published since September 2014. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search to yield a list of relevant studies based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Rayyan QCRI software will be used for screening and data extraction.
resultsThe results will be included in the full systematic review, which is expected to start in September 2024 and be completed to be submitted for publication by early 2025.
conclusionsThe findings are expected to identify the quality of materials evaluated by the PEMAT and the areas under evaluation. This review can also highlight gaps that exist in research and practice for improving the understandability and actionability of the materials, offering deeper insights into how existing materials can facilitate patient and public action. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/63489.
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.