ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Readability of Hospital Online Patient Education Materials Across Otolaryngology Specialties.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study evaluates the readability of online patient education materials (OPEMs) across otolaryngology subspecialties, hospital characteristics, and national otolaryngology organizations, while assessing AI alternatives. Methods: Hospitals from the US News Best ENT list were queried for OPEMs describing a chosen surgery per subspecialty; the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO), American Laryngological Association (ALA), Ear, Nose, and Throat United Kingdom (ENTUK), and the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (CSOHNS) were similarly queried. Google was queried for the top 10 links from hospitals per procedure. Ownership (private/public), presence of respective otolaryngology fellowships, region, and median household income (zip code) were collected. Readability was assessed using seven indices and averaged: Automated Readability Index (ARI), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Readability (GFR), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Coleman-Liau Readability Index (CLRI), and Linsear Write Readability Formula (LWRF). AI-generated materials from ChatGPT were compared for readability, accuracy, content, and tone. Analyses were conducted between subspecialties, against national organizations, NIH standard, and across demographic variables. Results: Across 144 hospitals, OPEMs exceeded NIH readability standards, averaging at an 8th-12th grade level across subspecialties. In rhinology, facial plastics, and sleep medicine, hospital OPEMs had higher readability scores than ENTUK's materials (11.4 vs. 9.1, 10.4 vs. 7.2, 11.5 vs. 9.2, respectively; all Conclusion: OPEMs from all sources exceed the NIH readability standard. ENTUK serves as a benchmark for accessible language, while ChatGPT demonstrates the feasibility of producing more readable content. Otolaryngologists might consider using ChatGPT to generate patient-friendly materials, with caution, and advocate for national-level improvements in patient education readability.
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.