ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Readability of Online Patient-Directed Content About Cystoscopy and Urodynamic Testing.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to assess the readability of commonly accessed patient-focused websites about cystoscopy or urodynamic studies (UDS).
methodsKeywords related to cystoscopy and UDS were searched in three commonly accessed search engines in 2024 and compared with a search from 2022. The top 25 search results from each search engine were assessed against the study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Readability scores (Flesch Reading Ease score [FRES], Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level [FKGL], Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook [FOG], Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG]) were calculated for the websites included. Mean readability scores of websites were compared by procedure type and publisher using the Mann-Whitney test.
resultsIn 2024, a total of 75 patient-oriented websites were identified, 33 (44.0%) of which were about cystoscopy and 42 (56.0%) websites were about UDS. Cystoscopy websites were difficult to read (FRES median 56 [55-69]), requiring grade 8-11 reading level (Gunning FOG median 11.3 [10.3-12.3]; FKGL median 8 [7.11-8.84]) and 8 years of education to read (SMOG median 8.06 [7.41-8.71]). UDS websites were difficult to read (FRES median 56 [41-66]), requiring grade 9-11 reading level (Gunning FOG median 11.45 [9.5-13.7]; FKGL median 8.85 [6.93-10.88]) and 8 years of education to read (SMOG median 8.49 [7.11-9.98]). Websites in 2024 were significantly easier to read than websites in 2022 based on Gunning FOG (p value 0.0079), FKGL (p value 0.0001), and SMOG scores (p value 0.0001), but still did not meet the recommendation of grade 6 reading level.
conclusionsPatient-focused online information about cystoscopy and UDS was harder to read than the American Medical Association-recommended grade 6 reading level of patient information. Readability of cystoscopy and UDS online information has improved over 2 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40067508What 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.