ArticleCureus2025
Readability and Quality of Online Information on Osteochondral Knee Injuries: An Objective Assessment.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background In the modern healthcare era, the internet serves as a major source of information for patients. However, prior studies have shown that online medical information frequently exceeds the recommended readability levels, limiting patient understanding. In the US, the average reading level is between seventh and eighth grade, while leading health organisations recommend that patient information not exceed a sixth-grade level. This study evaluates the readability and quality of publicly accessible online content related to osteochondral injuries of the knee. Methods A systematic search was conducted on Google (Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA), Bing (Microsoft® Corp., Redmond, WA), and Yahoo (Yahoo, Inc., New York, NY) using the terms "osteochondral defect knee" and "osteochondral injury knee." The top 30 uniform resource locators (URLs), for each search term, from each search engine were screened. Readability of the content was assessed using four standardised readability metrics (Gunning Fog Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade, Flesch Reading Ease, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index), while quality was measured based on the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Results Forty-six unique webpages were included in the analysis. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 10.1 ± 3.4, the mean Gunning Fog Index grade was 11.5 ± 4.1, the mean Flesch Reading Ease score was 43.8 ± 12.8, and the mean SMOG grade was 8.8 ± 2.9. Only five webpages were at or below a sixth-grade reading level. The mean JAMA score was 1.43 ± 1.46 out of four. Conclusion This study assessed the readability and credibility of online health information. The majority of online resources related to osteochondral knee injuries are difficult to read and lack key quality indicators. Improving both readability and reliability is essential to support patient comprehension, informed decision-making, and promote better health literacy.
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.