ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Online Resources for Migraine Surgery: Readability and Patient Understanding.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Migraine is a prevalent neurological disorder that affects quality of life. Surgery is a specialized option for patients with chronic or refractory migraine and requires understanding complex information. As patients rely on online resources, health literacy-the ability to obtain, understand, and use health information-becomes crucial for informed decision-making. However, online medical information often exceeds recommended readability levels. Methods: A systematic Google search for "migraine surgery" was performed, excluding duplicates, sponsored content, non-English websites, scientific journals, and multimedia-only sources. Texts from 31 articles across 11 websites were extracted and assessed using 6 validated readability indices: Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Flesch-Kincaid, Automated Readability Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, and Flesch Reading Ease. Mean scores were calculated, and analysis of variance with Tukey honestly significant difference test post hoc tests was used to evaluate differences between websites. Results: The mean readability level across all websites was higher than the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association recommended sixth-grade level, corresponding instead to high school or early college-level texts. Flesch Reading Ease averaged 44.9 ("difficult"). Readability varied significantly between websites; some were more accessible, whereas others were highly complex. Technical terminology, long sentences, and limited formatting or visual aids contributed to poor readability. Conclusions: Online patient information on migraine surgery is generally written at a level that is too difficult for the average reader, posing barriers to informed decision-making. Improving accessibility through simpler language, glossaries, and visual aids-and testing materials with users-could enhance patient understanding, autonomy, and engagement in healthcare decisions.
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.