ArticleJB & JS open access
Lost in Translation: Preoperative Orthopaedic Education Materials Significantly Exceed Recommended Reading Levels.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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.
- Readability of AI-Generated Patient Visit Summaries in Orthopedic Surgery: Retrospective Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
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
Background: National guidelines recommend that patient education materials are written at or below a 6th-grade reading level. Poor understanding of their care plan after orthopaedic surgery has been associated with worse outcomes, including lower surgical satisfaction and higher postoperative complications. This study evaluates the language availability and readability of orthopaedic patient education materials published by Elsevier and distributed via Epic, the most widely used electronic health record system in the United States. Methods: In March 2025, orthopaedic patient education documents, as well as their easy-to-read versions when available, were extracted from Epic in English and Spanish. Documents were summarized by type, subspecialty, and revision date. Readability was assessed using 5 validated English scoring systems and 2 Spanish systems. Comparisons with recommended grade levels and with their easy-to-read versions were analyzed using Results: Among 806 patient education documents, English and Spanish versions were available for all documents, but other languages were available for less than 30% of the documents. The mean readability grade level was 8.6 for English and 5.8 for Spanish documents, with 100% and 27% exceeding the recommended 6th-grade level, respectively. Preoperative documents consistently demonstrated the highest grade levels, whereas rehabilitation documents demonstrated lower grade levels across both English and Spanish documents (p < 0.05). Furthermore, musculoskeletal oncology documents consistently had the highest grade levels across document subspecialties (p < 0.05). Easy-to-read versions were only available for 11% of documents and reduced grade level to 7.4 for English and 5.5 for Spanish documents, although 94% and 4% still exceeded the recommended 6th-grade level, respectively. No significant changes in readability were observed over time. Conclusions: Elsevier's orthopaedic patient education materials, specifically related to preoperative information, are frequently written above recommended reading levels. The scarcity of easy-to-read versions further restricts their availability accessibility. To improve patient comprehension and adherence, efforts should focus on increasing the availability of simplified materials and expanding translation efforts. Artificial intelligence driven solutions may offer a scalable approach to addressing these deficiencies. Level of Evidence: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.