ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty2026
The readability of total elbow arthroplasty educational materials.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the readability of patient education materials related to total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and to compare readability across clinical practice and general health information websites. Methods: A Google search using the term "Total Elbow Arthroplasty patient information" was performed in September 2025. The first 25 websites containing written patient educational materials on TEA were included, excluding websites with only graphics, videos, or tables. Websites were categorized as clinical practice or general health information sources. Non-educational content was removed, and the remaining text was then analyzed using 9 validated readability formulas to calculate grade level scores for each source. Comparisons between clinical practice and general health information websites were performed using independent sample Results: Of the 25 patient education materials analyzed, 11 (44%) were from clinical practice websites and 14 (56%) from general health information websites. The mean reading level across all materials was 12.1 ± 2.5, ranging from 7.87 to 17.25. None of the educational materials met the recommended sixth-grade reading level set by the National Institutes of Health, American Medical Association, and the US Department of Health and Human Services. Clinical practice websites demonstrated significantly lower reading levels compared to general health information websites across most formulas (10.4 ± 2.2 vs. 13.4 ± 1.9; Conclusion: Online patient educational materials for TEA are written well above recommended reading levels. Although clinical practice websites are comparatively more readable than general health information sites, both remain above recommended standards. These findings underscore the need for plain language revisions and patient-centered design to improve comprehension and support informed decision-making among TEA candidates.
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.