ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Comparing the readability of online patient education materials for LASIK and cataract surgery.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
purposeThis study compares the readability and thoroughness of patient education materials for LASIK and cataract surgery.
methodsOnline patient education materials for LASIK and cataract surgery were collected from the top 30 U.S. ophthalmology programs, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), and generated using Doximity GPT. Materials were assessed using eight readability metrics that produced an average reading level score. Materials were also assessed for inclusion of information pertaining to description of the procedure, patient eligibility and contraindications, procedural risks, and post-operative care. Average readability and thoroughness were then compared between materials for each procedure.
resultsOf 30 ophthalmology programs, 27 had online patient education materials for LASIK and 19 for cataract surgery. There was no significant difference between the readability of LASIK and cataract surgery materials (grade level of 10.11 vs. 10.77, p = 0.100). A greater proportion of LASIK materials discussed patient eligibility (81.5% vs. 10.5%, p < 0.001), though there was no difference in the frequency of information pertaining to procedural risks and post-operative care. The AAO's materials were more readable than those from top ophthalmology programs (LASIK: 8.06 vs. 10.10, p < 0.001; cataract surgery: 8.73 vs. 10.77, p < 0.001), as were the Doximity GPT-generated materials (LASIK: 5.82 vs. 10.10, p < 0.001; cataract surgery: 7.32 vs. 10.77, p < 0.001).
conclusionsOnline patient education materials for both LASIK and cataract surgery exceed a tenth-grade level, making them inaccessible to many patients. Ophthalmologists may consider using Doximity GPT to generate more readable materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41925902What 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.