ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
Readability of patient education materials for lumbar disc replacement.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many patients refer to internet-based patient education materials (PEMs) to learn about lumbar disc replacement. The purpose of this study is to assess the readability of PEMs on lumbar disc replacement. Methods: The Google search engine was queried with the phrase "lumbar disc replacement patient information". Readability scores were calculated for the initial 25 websites that met inclusion criteria by copying the PEM to http://www.readabilityformulas.com. SPSS version 28.0.0 was used to calculate descriptive statistics for each measure. Results: The mean average reading level was 12.08±1.73. The mean readability score for Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score was 45.60±9.16. Additional scores include Gunning Fog, 14.50±2.06; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), 10.94±2.14; The Coleman Liau Index, 12.82±1.50; Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, 10.51±1.56; Automated Readability Index, 11.81±2.46; Linsear Write Formula, 11.08±3.49. Zero PEMs were found to be below the 6th-grade or 8th-grade reading level. Conclusions: PEM readability is a crucial part of the patient care experience, and the current readability of lumbar disc replacement PEMs is not at an acceptable level. Given their current state, PEMs can make it difficult for a sizable proportion of the general population to comprehend the nature of their medical condition and how to appropriately treat it.
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.