ArticleCureus2026
Enhancing Health Literacy in Endourology: Using Artificial Intelligence to Improve Readability of Patient Education Materials.
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Patient education materials (PEMs) enhance healthcare access and inclusivity, particularly for individuals without clinical backgrounds. However, many PEMs exceed recommended readability levels. This study evaluated whether artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted editing using ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) could improve the readability of endourology PEMs related to prostate cancer, nephrolithiasis, bladder cancer, and kidney cysts. Methods Twenty-one publicly available PEMs from the American Urological Association (AUA) were analyzed. Each document was uploaded into ChatGPT-4o with instructions to rewrite the text to an eighth-grade reading level or lower while preserving content and word count. Readability of original and AI-modified PEMs was assessed using ReadabilityFormulas.com across six validated indices: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning-Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE). Pre- and post-AI readability scores were compared using paired two-tailed t-tests. Results Across all indices and disease categories, AI modification significantly improved readability. Unmodified PEMs were written at approximately the ninth to 11
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.