ArticleOTO open
Evaluating the Readability and Understandability of Online Patient Materials Regarding Balloon Sinuplasty.
Article in OTO open. 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
Objective: An increasing number of patients are electing to undergo balloon sinuplasty for treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis due to its minimally invasive nature. This study aimed to evaluate the readability and understandability of online patient education materials (PEMs) related to balloon sinuplasty. Study Design: Cross sectional. Setting: Digital environment. Methods: A Google search was performed using 6 different search terms related to balloon sinuplasty. Websites related to PEMs for balloon sinuplasty were included. Four different measures of readability were utilized to assess the readability of each website: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FKRE), Gunning-Fog Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index. Understandability was determined using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Results: Fifty-three online PEMs related to balloon sinuplasty were included. The average FKGL was 9.07 ± 2.1, which is higher than the recommended grade reading levels. The average FKRE was 45.11 ± 9.3, indicating they were difficult for the general public to read. The mean PEMAT was 49.7 ± 16.3%, which is lower than the accepted standard of 80%, which indicates materials are not readily understandable. Most PEMs were obtained from private medical clinics (79.2%, N = 42). Conclusion: Online PEMs related to balloon sinuplasty are written above the recommended 6th grade reading level. Poor readability was seen across all readability measures and all material categories. Patients and clinicians alike should be aware of the shortcomings of online materials and consider the effects on patient understanding and decision making.
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.