ArticleSpine surgery and related research2026
Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Endoscopic Spine Surgery.
Article in Spine surgery and related research, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Patients frequently use internet-based resources to seek information. Endoscopic spine surgery is extensively marketed on the internet, with purported benefits over traditional open techniques. Previous literature has recommended that the readability of patient education materials (PEM) should not exceed the 6th-grade reading level to optimize health literacy. This study aims to evaluate the readability of online PEMs concerning endoscopic spine surgery. Methods: A Google search query was performed using the term "Endoscopic spine surgery patient information." The first 25 websites meeting study inclusion criteria were analyzed for readability using Flesch-Kincaid, average reading level consensus, Gunning Fog, Coleman-Liau, SMOG, and Linsear Write indices. Descriptive statistics were reported. Results: The mean average reading level was 12.8 (1.68). The mean Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score was 37.6 (11.1). The mean Gunning Fog Score was 14.7 (1.92), Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 12.2 (2.56), Coleman-Liau was 14.0 (1.82), SMOG 11.6 (2.07), Automated Readability Index was 12.9 (3.11), and Linsear Write was 11.8 (2.21). Zero of the 25 included PEMs was evaluated to be below the recommended sixth-grade reading level. Four of the PEMs were considered General Health Information, and 21 were considered Clinical Practice. No differences were found between Clinical Practice and General Health Information websites (p>0.05). Conclusions: Creating appropriate PEMs is integral to achieving optimal health literacy. The current readability of the most accessible PEMs related to endoscopic spine surgery is inadequate. As it stands, many patients may not appropriately comprehend the description of their anticipated surgery.
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.