ArticleClinical pediatrics2026
Pediatric Gastrostomy Educational Materials: A Health Literacy Assessment.
Article in Clinical pediatrics, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Health literacy and language impact comprehension of and adherence to written educational materials, including those for gastrostomy tubes (g-tubes). Our objective was to evaluate the readability, understandability, actionability, content, and language availability of a national sample of written g-tube educational materials. We conducted a cross-sectional study of g-tube educational materials from top 20 children's hospitals (US News and World Report) obtained via a systematic online search and provided by the institutions. We assessed material: (1) readability, (2) understandability and actionability (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials, (3) content, and (4) language availability. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) reading grade level was 8.3 (1.9). Mean (SD) understandability and actionability scores were 81.6% (12.1%) and 65.9% (23.2%), respectively. Materials covered a mean (SD) of 46.1% (25.3%) of content items; 20% of institutions provided materials in non-English languages. Future research should examine how to improve educational materials for children with g-tubes.
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.