ArticleAdvances in health information science and practice2025
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Scores to Evaluate Readability of Clinical Documentation During an Electronic Health Record Transition.
Article in Advances in health information science and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Readability, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Tools and Patient Educational Material: A Systematic Review.Glomerular diseasesPooled it
- Article
- Article
- 'Your Face, Their Stage': A Global, AI-Enhanced, Mixed-Methods Survey on Public Perceptions of Live Educational Cosmetic Procedures.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality of online patient education materials for gastric adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Avascular Necrosis.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2026Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) serve as a critical tool for clinical documentation, yet their complexity has raised concerns about readability and usability for healthcare providers and patients. Readability scores, such as the Flesch-Kincaid (FK) Grade Level, offer a quantitative method to assess documentation clarity. In this study, the authors evaluated the impact of an EHR transition on the readability of clinical notes across multiple medical specialties. Methods: All clinical notes recorded between 2016 and 2019 at a large healthcare organization were evaluated across specialties. The organization transitioned EHR systems during the study period, in May 2018. FK Grade Level scores were calculated for each clinical consultation note and stratified by specialty and EHR. Results: Across 10 medical specialties, 630,246 clinical notes were evaluated. The median FK grade levels from notes composed in the new EHR were similar to those composed in the previous EHR (8.228 vs 8.240; p=0.58). The variation in FK grade level as measured by standard deviation was lower in the new EHR compared with the old EHR (1.405 vs 1.764; p <0.01). Conclusions: Calculation of FK grade level of clinical notes is a feasible method to assess clinical note readability. Study results showed that clinical documentation readability may not be strongly associated with underlying EHR. Migrating to a new EHR alone should not be expected to improve readability of clinical notes.
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.