ArticleArthroplasty today2026
Readability Analysis of Commonly Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Orthopaedic Joint Literature.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are vital for assessing surgical effectiveness and capturing patient perspectives on function, symptoms, and quality of life. To ensure patients can accurately complete these tools, readability is essential. The National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association recommend patient materials be written at or below a 6th-grade reading level. This study evaluated the readability of commonly cited PROMs in the orthopaedic joint literature to assess compliance with these standards. Methods: Thirty-five PROMs were analyzed using 2 validated readability metrics: the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index. A FRES ≥80 or SMOG <7 indicated 6th-grade readability. Scores were calculated using an online readability calculator and compared to National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association guidelines. Results: The average FRES was 67 (range, 21-90), and the average SMOG Index was 8 (range, 6-12), indicating an overall 8th- to 9th-grade reading level. Only 6 PROMs (17%) met the readability threshold. Among the least readable were the University of California, Los Angeles Activity Score, Modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Kujala Score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia. Conclusions: Most PROMs commonly cited in the orthopaedic joint literature are written above the recommended 6th-grade level, which may compromise patient understanding and data quality. Improving readability through revision or development of new tools may enhance patient accessibility and the accuracy of reported outcomes.
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.