ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Myopia Management.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatients are turning to the internet to access educational materials to help them make healthcare decisions, making readability an important factor. This cross-sectional study assessed the readability of online patient education materials for myopia management treatments that have regulatory approval.
methodsThe top 10 Google search results from May 2024 for freely available online patient information on myopia management modalities and regulatory-approved products in Canada and Australia were analysed for readability. The modalities included orthokeratology, myopia control spectacle lenses, myopia control soft contact lenses and atropine. The products included MiYOSMART® [HOYA®], Stellest® [Essilor®], MyoCare® [ZEISS], MiSight® 1 day [CooperVision®], ACUVUE® Abiliti® 1-Day [Johnson & Johnson], NaturalVue® Multifocal 1 Day [VTI], ACUVUE® Abiliti® Overnight [Johnson & Johnson] and Eikance [Aspen Pharmacare Australia]. These searches gave 120 results. Readability was assessed with Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index and Coleman Liau Index (CLI). Additionally, websites were scored on Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Statistical analysis was performed with two-tailed tests.
resultsOf 120 websites, none met the recommended sixth-grade reading level across all readability indices. There were 13 websites meeting at least one readability index, 10 being product-related. There were seven websites satisfying all four JAMA benchmarks, while the majority met one. There was a weak positive relationship between product search rank and readability (SMOG p = 0.02, GFI p = 0.02) and a weak negative relationship between JAMA benchmarks and readability for both modality (CLI p = 0.045) and product (CLI p = 0.049).
conclusionsOnline information about myopia management is generally written above the recommended sixth-grade reading level and does not meet all JAMA benchmarks. Websites that appear as top search results do not necessarily have easier readability. The readability of online patient education materials may influence access to treatment and 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.