ArticleCentral European journal of urology2025
A cross-language analysis of urolithiasis patient online materials: Assessment across 24 European languages.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 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.
- The clinical utility of urolithiasis morphology assessment for perioperative stone composition determination.Central European journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Urolithiasis is a prevalent condition with several etiological factors, affecting up to 20% of the population and exhibiting high recurrence rates. Its strain on healthcare systems, exacerbated by high incidence and recurrence, often results in insufficient time for thorough diagnostics and counselling. Consequently, many patients seek easily accessible online sources of information. This study aimed to assess the readability and availability of online urolithiasis materials across 24 official European languages to compare readability across different source types. Material and methods: The phrase "kidney stones" was translated into all official European languages, and the first 50 search results for each language were retrieved. Non-functional websites, those requiring accounts or payments, and duplicates were excluded. Relevance was assessed using Google Translate to filter out results lacking medical information. Only patient-oriented materials were included for analysis. Obtained results were then classified by source category, and their readability was assessed using LIX formula. Results: A total of 723 articles were analysed. The English term yielded the highest number of results, followed by Spanish and Portuguese. Overall, the English articles performed best, being the only language with a mean LIX score below 40, which marks the threshold between "somewhat hard" and "hard" to read. Finnish, Lithuanian, and Hungarian materials had LIX scores significantly exceeding the threshold of 50, classifying them as "very hard to read" and among the most difficult to comprehend.A subgroup analysis revealed no statistically significant differences across the source classification. Conclusions: Online materials on kidney stones are generally too complex for patients, limiting their understanding and treatment adherence. Simplification of patient-oriented materials along with artificial intelligence utilisation could enhance comprehension. Improved awareness may promote adherence to preventive measures and help reduce the incidence and economic burden of urolithiasis.
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.