ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2026
Evaluating the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Avascular Necrosis.
Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Avascular necrosis (AVN) is a progressive pathology affecting pediatric and adult patients. Given the risks of joint collapse and surgery, patients frequently research their condition online. The average reading level in the United States is approximately the eighth-grade level. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommend that patient materials be written at or below a sixth-grade level. This study aimed to assess the readability and quality of online AVN resources. Methods: A Google search using the terms "avascular necrosis" and "osteonecrosis" was conducted, and first-page results were aggregated. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, and Flesch Reading Ease tests were performed to assess the reading levels of these resources. DISCERN scores were determined by two reviewers. Results: Sixteen original general educational articles emerged. Of these, one article (6.25%) was at or below the NIH-recommended reading level. Five articles (31.25%) were at or below the average reading level in the United States. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 9.3 ± 1.8, the mean Gunning Fog Index was 10.6 ± 2.3, and the mean Flesch Reading ease was 46.7 ± 11.3. The mean DISCERN score was 59.7 ± 7.8, which is classified as "good quality." Conclusions: The readability of first-page Google results for AVN-related patient resources is at an education level higher than that recommended by the NIH and higher than the average national reading level. This study highlights the necessity for developing high-quality, accessible patient educational materials about AVN that are tailored to an appropriate level for patients and their families.
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.