ArticleBJA open2025
The readability of online English and Spanish patient education materials on anaesthesia for orthopaedic surgery.
Article in BJA open, 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.
- Article
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
Background: With the increasing utilisation of regional anaesthesia for orthopaedic procedures, it is imperative that related online patient education materials (PEMs) be easily retrievable, comprehensive, and readable by the general population, irrespective of the language they are written in. Therefore, we compared the readability levels of online PEMs available in English and Spanish for anaesthesia related to total hip, knee, and shoulder joint replacements. Methods: Six pairs (English and Spanish) of search terms were entered into Google and used to identify relevant online PEMs. Results for English search terms were analysed for readability using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Fry Graph (FG), Simple Measures of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, and Gunning Fog Index scores, and for Spanish search terms using the Fernandez-Huerta Reading Ease (FHRE), the Gilliam-Peña-Mountain Grade Level (GPMGL), the Spanish SMOG (SOL), and Indice de Legibilidad de Flesch-Szigriszt (INFLESZ) scores. Scores were compared between languages if the Spanish-language calculator was a validated adaptation of the English one (FRE Results: Overall, 180 and 146 relevant websites were retrieved across all six English language and Spanish-language search terms, respectively. Generally, the FRE and FG scores for the English search results corresponded to college-level material and the SMOG score reflected a 10th grade reading level. In contrast, the FHRE, GPMGL, and SOL scores for Spanish search results corresponded to 10th-12th grade reading levels, and the INFLESZ to 'Difficult'/'Normal' levels. Conclusions: These findings reinforce past literature describing English and Spanish-language orthopaedic anaesthesia PEMs being written at far higher reading levels than the recommended 5th to 8th grade reading level. Interestingly, English PEMs were less readable than their Spanish counterparts, yet, they were more available than related Spanish PEMs overall.
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.