ArticleJournal of community genetics2026
Analyzing readability and suitability of webpages related to genetic counseling and genetic testing.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients who are referred for genetic counseling and/or genetic testing may conduct web searches to try to gather more information prior to their appointment. However, little is known about the reading level of such resources or the suitability of the information they provide. This study aims to determine the readability and suitability of top-ranked webpages after general searches about genetic counseling and if there is a difference in these metrics depending on which type of organization (i.e., government, non-profit) authored the webpage. Twenty webpages were identified using Google. Searches of the questions "What is a genetic counselor?", "What is genetic testing?", "Why do I need genetic testing?", and "What happens at a genetic counseling appointment?" were completed and the top 5 pages were taken from each. These webpages were then analyzed using the readability tools of Flesch-Kincaid (FK) and Standardized Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Both FK and SMOG provide an assessment of readability based on grade level with the goal of this study to find resources under grade level 8. Additionally, the webpages were analyzed using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) on 6 categories. To complete the SAM analysis, two reviewers completed the tool for each webpage. Sponsor type was determined based on the primary goal of the group that supported or published the webpage. When comparing between questions, the average FK scores for the webpages were between 8th and 12th grade and the average SMOG scores were between 11th and 14th grade. Most webpages rated as adequate on the SAM scale. The results of this study highlight the continued need for evaluation of patient resources, especially those on the internet, to ensure they are meeting the needs of the rising number of individuals being referred to genetic services.
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.