ArticleJournal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America2026
What Resources Are Available for Parents Online? A Readability, Quality, and Source Evaluation of Website and AI-Generated Content on Inherited Pediatric Orthopaedic Conditions.
Article in Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Individuals frequently consult the internet when seeking information about their health. However, patient education materials (PEMs) published online are often written above the recommended sixth-to eighth-grade reading level. The readability and quality of online resources for inherited conditions are poorly studied. Additionally, little is known about the reading level of responses from artificial intelligence (AI) models when prompted with healthcare inquiries. We aimed to assess the readability and quality of online health information encountered when searching for inherited pediatric orthopaedic conditions, including outputs from popular large language model (LLM) chatbots. Methods: Twenty-three inherited pediatric orthopaedic conditions were queried using Google in three common search formats. First-page search results, including Google AI Overviews, were analyzed. Searches were replicated in three chatbots: Microsoft Copilot, ChatGPT, and Google Gemini. Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Results: Of 706 identified webpages, 355 met inclusion criteria. Most webpages were hosted by government agencies, academic hospitals, or nonprofit organizations. Mean readability levels were high (FRE 38.2; FKGL 12.1), substantially exceeding the recommended levels for patient-facing health information. Only 18% of webpages met eighth-grade readability standards. AI-generated outputs demonstrated similar readability (FRE 36.1; FKGL 12.3). Only 2% of AI responses met eighth-grade readability recommendations. However, when the input prompt included a request to improve readability, AI models lowered average output readability by nearly six grade levels (FRE 69.0; FKGL 6.8). Conclusions: Online information for inherited pediatric orthopaedic conditions is frequently written above recommended reading levels, and AI-generated content does not meaningfully improve accessibility unless specifically prompted to do so. Despite generally reputable website sources, limited readability and accountability highlight opportunities for orthopaedic surgeons and organizations to advocate for improved clarity, accessibility, and patient-centered communication. Key Concepts: (1)Online patient education materials for inherited pediatric orthopaedic conditions are written at a higher reading level than the recommended 8 Level of Evidence: V.
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.