ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
A Readability Analysis of Online Patient Education Materials Regarding Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure used to diagnose and treat hepato-biliary and pancreatic conditions. Many patients use internet search engines for educational purposes prior to procedures, such as ERCP. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends patient education materials be written at a 5th-6th grade reading level. There is no prior literature examining the reading level of ERCP education materials. The primary objective of this study is to assess the readability of online patient education materials regarding ERCP.
methodsUsing the Google search engine, the top 75 search results for 5 ERCP-related keywords (total 375 websites) were screened. After exclusion, readability was assessed using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and three other tools (Flesch-Kincaid, Coleman-Liau and Automated Readability Index). Websites were categorized as academic or non-academic. A word substitution analysis assessed readability after replacing complex words with simpler alternatives.
resultsA total of 129 websites met inclusion criteria. The mean SMOG reading grade level was 9.43 (n = 129). Academic websites (n = 77) had a statistically significantly lower mean reading level than non-academic websites (n = 52) (SMOG 9.17 vs. 9.83, d = 0.49, p < 0.01). Similar trends were found with the other readability tools. Substituting easier words for complex words resulted in a significantly lower mean reading level (SMOG 8.97, d = 1.52, p < 0.01).
conclusionOnline ERCP patient education materials are at a 9th-11th grade reading level, exceeding the AMA recommendations. Word substitution analysis significantly decreased the mean reading level, but not to the recommended levels. Medical organizations should prioritize accessible health information to improve patient understanding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41261340What 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.