Fog Score Research Articles

How Readable Is the Information the United Kingdom's Statutory Health and Social Care Professional Regulators Provide for the Public to Engage With Fitness to Practise Processes?

The public are an important source of notifications and evidence for the investigation of concerns by regulators of professionals. The website is an important source of information for the public, but the complexity of information presented to engage with the public is unknown. This study explored the readability of information provided for the public to engage with fitness to practise processes by examining the websites of the 13 UK statutory health and social care professional regulators. Six readability algorithms were utilised to calculate the readability scores of 180 general and 8 easy-read documents published for the 15 sites of the United Kingdom's 13 health and social care statutory professional regulatory bodies. These tests were the Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease, the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, the Gunning Fog Score, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, the Coleman Liau Index and the Automated Readability Index (ARI). All the fitness to practise documents analysed in this study are written at a level too difficult for most of the general population to read, except one easy-read document. There was also considerable variation in readability across resources for the same regulator, which could be confusing. Regulatory bodies risk excluding a large proportion of UK adults who may want to engage with professional regulatory proceedings. This is the first comparative analysis of readability conducted independent of the regulators of the fitness to practise website documents of health and social care regulators. The public are a key source of evidence in regulatory proceedings. Regulators could improve public engagement by addressing the complexity of language used. Our advisory group of people with lived experience of involvement as members of the public in fitness to practise proceedings discussed the findings and contributed to the recommendations.

Enhancing Health Literacy: Evaluating the Readability of Patient Handouts Revised by ChatGPT's Large Language Model.

To use an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered large language model (LLM) to improve readability of patient handouts. Review of online material modified by AI. Academic center. Five handout materials obtained from the American Rhinologic Society (ARS) and the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery websites were assessed using validated readability metrics. The handouts were inputted into OpenAI's ChatGPT-4 after prompting: "Rewrite the following at a 6th-grade reading level." The understandability and actionability of both native and LLM-revised versions were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Results were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. The mean readability scores of the standard (ARS, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery) materials corresponded to "difficult," with reading categories ranging between high school and university grade levels. Conversely, the LLM-revised handouts had an average seventh-grade reading level. LLM-revised handouts had better readability in nearly all metrics tested: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (70.8 vs 43.9; P < .05), Gunning Fog Score (10.2 vs 14.42; P < .05), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (9.9 vs 13.1; P < .05), Coleman-Liau (8.8 vs 12.6; P < .05), and Automated Readability Index (8.2 vs 10.7; P = .06). PEMAT scores were significantly higher in the LLM-revised handouts for understandability (91 vs 74%; P < .05) with similar actionability (42 vs 34%; P = .15) when compared to the standard materials. Patient-facing handouts can be augmented by ChatGPT with simple prompting to tailor information with improved readability. This study demonstrates the utility of LLMs to aid in rewriting patient handouts and may serve as a tool to help optimize education materials. Level VI.

Leveraging Generative Artificial Intelligence Models in Patient Education on Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

Background: Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters have become an advantageous treatment modality for patients with venous thromboembolism. As the use of these filters continues to grow, it is imperative for providers to appropriately educate patients in a comprehensive yet understandable manner. Likewise, generative artificial intelligence models are a growing tool in patient education, but there is little understanding of the readability of these tools on IVC filters. Methods: This study aimed to determine the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid, and Gunning Fog readability of IVC Filter patient educational materials generated by these artificial intelligence models. Results: The ChatGPT cohort had the highest mean Gunning Fog score at 17.76 ± 1.62 and the lowest at 11.58 ± 1.55 among the Copilot cohort. The difference between groups for Flesch Reading Ease scores (p = 8.70408 × 10-8) was found to be statistically significant albeit with priori power found to be low at 0.392. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that the answers generated by the Microsoft Copilot cohort offers a greater degree of readability compared to ChatGPT cohort regarding IVC filters. Nevertheless, the mean Flesch-Kincaid readability for both cohorts does not meet the recommended U.S. grade reading levels.

A Content and Readability Analysis of Genitourinary and Sexual Health-Related Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Gender-Affirming Care

ObjectivesTo the evaluate the readability and comprehensiveness of genitourinary and sexual health-related patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) used in gender-affirming care. MethodsCommon PROMs that measure genitourinary and sexual health-related outcomes in gender-affirming care literature were identified from six recent systematic reviews. Readability analysis was completed at the level of individual items and full scale using established readability assessment tool, including Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score (GF), Coleman Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index. The concepts measured by the PROMs were evaluated for comprehensiveness. Results25 PROMs were included, of which 12 assessed genitourinary outcomes and 13 assessed sexual health outcomes. A total of seven genitourinary domains and eight sexual health domains were identified during concept mapping. Readability analysis showed a median PROM grade level of 9.0 and 9.5 in genitourinary and sexual PROMs, respectively. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sexual Function and Satisfaction v2.0 had the lowest median reading grade level of 5.7, and the Female Sexual Function Index has the highest median reading grade level of 13.9. No single PROM was found to be comprehensive. Multiple PROMs contained double-barreled items or used outdated terminology. ConclusionsMost PROMs used in the genital gender-affirming literature failed to meet the readability recommendations for patient-facing material and were culturally unfit for use in transgender and gender-diverse individuals. None of the PROMs were found to be comprehensive for evaluating outcomes of gender-affirming care. Validated gender-affirming care-specific PROMs that are comprehensible, comprehensive, and relevant are urgently needed.

Adaptation and Validation of the Turkish Version of the Brain Fog Scale.

Brain fog is a condition that is characterized by poor concentration, memory loss, decreased cognitive function, and mental fatigue. Although it is generally known as a long-term COVID-19 symptom, brain fog has also been reported to be caused by many other diseases. Thus, it is necessary to assess this condition in certain populations. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Brain Fog Scale in a Turkish population. We conducted the study in two phases. In a pilot study including 125 participants, we confirmed the suitability of the scale for validity analyses and then conducted exploratory (n = 230) and confirmatory factor analyses (n = 343). The Cronbach's alpha value of the 23-item Brain Fog Scale was 0.966. In addition, the 23-item and three-factor structure was confirmed as a result of the analyses. These three factors are mental fatigue, impaired cognitive acuity, and confusion. We also found that participants previously diagnosed with COVID-19 had higher brain fog scores. This finding indicates that brain fog is an important condition that can accompany COVID-19. Furthermore, this validated construct has an acceptable fit and is a valid and useful tool for the Turkish population.

Dyslexia Articles Unboxed: Analyzing Their Readability Level.

Dyslexia is characterized by difficulties with fluent word recognition, decoding, or spelling, and it has been linked to family history. Given the impact of dyslexia on broad academic activities and well-being, ensuring that information about dyslexia is accessible to affected children and their families is vital. This study aims to assess the readability levels of dyslexia-related websites, with the hypothesis that such websites should be written at an appropriate readability level to accommodate those who may also have reading challenges. This study analyzes the readability of 50 web articles on dyslexia using 6 readability formulas: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Score, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index. The search term "What is dyslexia" was used on Google. Each article was analyzed using the online calculation website WebFX. The readability goal for these websites was set at fifth grade, a level recommended for patients with reading challenges. The study found that among the 50 websites, the lowest median readability score was 11.8 (corresponding to a 12th-grade level) on the SMOG Index, while the highest scores were 15.5 on both the Gunning Fog Score and the Coleman Liau Index (indicative of college-level readability). Almost none of the websites had scores below a fifth-grade level. Most websites related to dyslexia are too complex. Tools such as readability metrics and sentence restructuring by AI can help make the information more accessible and understandable to the stakeholders.

Pregnancy Loss: A Comparative Analysis of Information Delivery Between ACOG FAQs and ChatGPT [ID 2683594

INTRODUCTION: Pregnancy loss is a sensitive topic, and clear, reliable information is crucial. This study compares the readability and accuracy of ChatGPT's responses to ACOG's frequently asked questions (FAQ) sheets on the subject. METHODS: Within the five FAQ sheets under “Pregnancy Loss,” 66 questions were assessed using ChatGPT-3.5. Readability scores, ie, Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Score, Smog Index, Coleman Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index were computed for each response. The quality of responses were also graded by two maternal–fetal medicine specialists using a 1–4 scale, where 1 represents a comprehensive response and 4 indicates an incorrect response. Statistical analysis utilized a two-tailed t-test. A weighted Cohen’s kappa coefficient evaluated interrater reliability. RESULTS: ACOG attained better readability scores over ChatGPT across all six metrics with statistical significance (P&lt;.001). Among grading, ACOG also outperformed ChatGPT in quality of information with a summative mean of 1.53 (SD 0.60) versus 1.85 (SD 0.90) with statistical significance (P&lt;.001). Grading for ACOG possessed a Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.493, implying moderate agreement between graders. Grading for ChatGPT possessed a Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.744, implying substantial agreement between graders. CONCLUSION: The responses by ACOG to frequently asked questions on pregnancy loss were both clearer and more comprehensive than those of ChatGPT with consistent agreement between graders. Although ChatGPT can be a convenient source of medical queries, further improvements ought to be made to these large-language models to provide clear and accurate information regarding pregnancy loss to patients.

An Analysis of the Readability of Online Sarcoidosis Resources.

Introduction Sarcoidosis is an inflammatory disease characterized by the formation of noncaseating granulomas in multiple organ systems. The presentation can vary widely; although some patients with sarcoidosis can be asymptomatic, sarcoidosis can also present in others with symptomatic multiorgan system involvement. Considering the potential severity of the disease, patients need to be well-informed about sarcoidosis to better manage their health. This study aims to assess the readability levels of online resources about sarcoidosis. Methods We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. The term "sarcoidosis" was searched online using both Google and Bing to find websites written in English. Each website was categorized by type: academic, commercial, government, nonprofit, and physician. The readability scores for each website were calculated using six different readability tests: the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease (FKRE), Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Gunning fog score (GFS), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), automated readability index (ARI), and Coleman-Liau index (CLI). FKRE gives a score that corresponds to the difficulty of the text, while the remaining tests give a score that corresponds to a grade level in terms of reading ability. A one-sample t-test was used to compare all test scores with the national recommended standard of a sixth-grade reading level. Our null hypothesis was that the readability scores of the websites searched would not differ statistically significantly from the sixth-grade reading level and that there would be no significant differences across website categories. To evaluate the difference between the categories of websites, ANOVA testing was used. Results Thirty-four websites were analyzed. Each of the six readability tests for the websites had an average score, which corresponded to being significantly harder to read than the nationally recommended sixth-grade reading level (p<0.001). None of the mean readability scores showed a statistically significant difference across the five different website categories. Conclusions This is the first study, to our knowledge, to examine the readability of online English resources on sarcoidosis and calculate standardized readability scores for them. It implies that the online English material for sarcoidosis is above the health literacy recommended reading levels for patients. There is a need to simplify the material to be easier to read for patients.

Readability and Quality of Online Patient Education Materials Concerning Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Objective This study aimed to assess the quality of online patient educational materials regarding posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. Methods We performed a search of the top-50 results on Google® (terms: "posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction,""PCL reconstruction,""posterior cruciate ligament surgery," and "PCL surgery") and subsequently filtered to rule out duplicated/inaccessible websites or those containing only videos (67 websites included). Readability was assessed using six formulas: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKG), Gunning Fog Score (GF), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI); quality was assessed using the JAMA benchmark criteria and recording the presence of the HONcode seal. Results The mean FRE was 49.3 (SD 11.2) and the mean FKG level was 8.09. These results were confirmed by the other readability formulae (average: GF 8.9; SMOG Index 7.3; CLI 14.7; ARI 6.5). A HONcode seal was available for 7.4 % of websites. The average JAMA score was 1.3. Conclusion The reading level of online patient materials concerning PCL reconstruction is too high for the average reader, requiring high comprehension skills. Practice implications Online medical information has been shown to influence patient healthcare decision processes. Patient-oriented educational materials should be clear and easy to understand.

Quality, Reliability, and Readability of Online Information on Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension.

To evaluate the quality & reliability, technical quality, and readability of patient-targeted online information on idiopathic intracranial hypertension. In this cross-sectional study, we searched Google and Bing search engines for the terms "idiopathic intracranial hypertension" and "pseudotumor cerebri." We evaluated the first 50 search outcomes for each search term. Peer-reviewed articles, targeted advertisements, book chapters, videos, personal blogs, websites intended for healthcare professionals, and non-English websites were excluded. Websites were classified as institutional or private. Two independent reviewers assessed each website for 1) quality and reliability using DISCERN, Health on the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode), and JAMA criteria and 2) technical quality based on 11 criteria. Readability was evaluated using 6 measures (Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score and grade level, Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (Smog) index, Coleman-Liau index, and automated readability index). Sixty-three websites (37 institutional) were included. The mean scores for the DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA criteria were 3.6 ± 1 (1-4.8; 1: worse, 5: best), 10.3 ± 2.8 (2-16; 0: worse, 16: best), and 2 ± 1.3 (0-4; 0: worse, 4: best), respectively. The mean technical quality score was 0.8 ± 0.1 (0.5-1). The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level score was 8.9 ± 1.8 (3.3-13.3). For Flesch-Kincaid grade level, 47 (74.6%) websites scored a grade level of 10 or less. For Gunning Fog Score, 35 websites (55.6%) scored from 7.3 to 10.8. For the Smog Index, 46 (73%) websites scored 5.7-8. The mean Coleman Liau Index was 16 ± 2.1 (9.6-22.2). For the automated readability index, 30 (50.7%) websites scored less than the eighth grade. No statistically significant difference was present between institutional and private websites except for JAMA, which scored higher in private websites (2.4 vs 1.7, P = 0.03). Our findings suggest that online information on idiopathic intracranial hypertension/pseudotumor cerebri for patients generally demonstrates moderate to good quality and reliability. Although most websites maintain credible technical quality, the readability exceeds recommended levels for the average American reader. This may impede understanding, emphasizing the need for future improvements.

A Readability Study of Carpal Tunnel Release in 2023.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Medical Association (AMA) recommend a sixth-grade reading level for patient-directed content. This study aims to quantitatively evaluate the readability of online information sources related to carpal tunnel surgery using established readability indices. Web searches for "carpal tunnel release" and "carpal tunnel decompression surgery" queries were performed using Google, and the first 20 websites were identified per query. WebFX online software tools were utilized to determine readability. Indices included Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease, Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman Liau Index, Automated Readability Index, Gunning Fog Score, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index. Health-specific clickthrough rate (CTR) data were used in order to select the first 20 search engine results page from each query. "Carpal tunnel release" had a mean readability of 8.46, and "carpal tunnel decompression surgery" had a mean readability of 8.70. The range of mean readability scores among the indices used for both search queries was 6.17 to 14.0. The total mean readability for carpal tunnel surgery information was found to be 8.58. This corresponds to approximately a ninth-grade reading level in the United States. The average readability of carpal tunnel surgery online content is three grade levels above the recommended sixth-grade level for patient-directed materials. This discrepancy indicates that existing online materials related to carpal tunnel surgery are more difficult to understand than the standards set by NIH and AMA.

Online Resources for Robin Sequence; an Analysis of Readability.

The objective was to evaluate the readability of easily accessible parent-directed information concerning Robin Sequence (RS) online, compared to the American Medical Association (AMA)-recommended sixth grade (age 11-12) readability level. A Google search of the term “Pierre Robin Sequence information” was performed. The first ten websites were evaluated using six commonly used readability formulas. Sample texts from three websites were ‘translated’ by the authors, with the aim of achieving a sixth grade readability level. The following outcomes were used: Automated Readability Index (ARI), Coleman Liau Index (CLI), Gunning Fog Score, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score. The mean pooled grade level of the top 10 included websites was 12.1 (age 17-18). The overall FRE Index was 45.8, which is equivalent to a College-grade reading level. The mean grade level by each test used was: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 11.6 (age 16-17), Gunning Fog Score 13.3 (age 18+), SMOG 10.0 (age 14-15), Coleman-Liau Index 13.8 (age 18+), and ARI 12.0 (age 17-18). The author-translated resources achieved pooled mean grade levels of 6.3-6.5. Parent-directed online materials concerning RS have a readability in excess of the AMA-recommended sixth grade reading level. Even though the condition is complex, more readable resources are achievable. Coproduction of parent-directed resources in association with public an patient involvement (PPI) contributors is encouraged.

Assessing the readability of open data portals: a case study of Open Data Pakistan

Open data portals have been implemented in numerous countries to provide accessible, usable, and reproducible data. This study aims to assess the readability of datasets from Open Data Pakistan. Using the URL (https://opendata.com.pk/) in an online readability checking tool, six well-known readability formulas were employed, including Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease, Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Score, Smog Index, Coleman Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index. The average score of each formula was calculated to analyze the standard readability of the open data portal. Additionally, the website was explored to evaluate the overall status of open datasets, showcases, and features like "Connect" on Open Data Pakistan. The findings indicated that the Open Data Pakistan website has a reading difficulty, scoring an average of 47.4 out of 100, making it challenging for the general public to read. However, the overall analysis suggested that the readability status of open data in Pakistan is satisfactory. These results offer insights into improving the readability of open data for enhanced citizen participation and informed decision-making. Moreover, the study has implications for policymakers and stakeholders regarding the readability of Open Data Pakistan, emphasizing the importance of considering readability in open data publication policies and guidelines, with a recommendation to decrease the percentage of open data portals categorized as hard to read.

AI-Generated Information for Vascular Patients: Assessing the Standard of Procedure-Specific Information Provided by the ChatGPT AI-Language Model.

Introduction Ensuring access to high-quality information is paramount to facilitating informed surgical decision-making. The use of the internet to access health-related information is increasing, along with the growing prevalence of AI language models such as ChatGPT. We aim to assess the standard of AI-generated patient-facing information through a qualitative analysis of its readability and quality. Materials and methods We performed a retrospective qualitative analysis of information regarding three common vascular procedures: endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), and femoro-popliteal bypass (FPBP). The ChatGPT responses were compared to patient information leaflets provided by the vascular charity, Circulation Foundation UK. Readability was assessed using four readability scores: the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease (FKRE) score, the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), the Gunning fog score (GFS), and the simple measure of gobbledygook (SMOG) index. Quality was assessed using the DISCERN tool by two independent assessors. Results The mean FKRE score was 33.3, compared to 59.1 for the information provided by the Circulation Foundation (SD=14.5, p=0.025) indicating poor readability of AI-generated information. The FFKGL indicated that the expected grade of students likely to read and understand ChatGPT responses was consistently higher than compared to information leaflets at 12.7 vs. 9.4 (SD=1.9, p=0.002). Two metrics measure readability in terms of the number of years of education required to understand a piece of writing: the GFS and SMOG. Both scores indicated that AI-generated answers were less accessible. The GFS for ChatGPT-provided information was 16.7 years versus 12.8 years for the leaflets (SD=2.2, p=0.002) and the SMOG index scores were 12.2 and 9.4 years for ChatGPT and the patient information leaflets, respectively (SD=1.7, p=0.001). The DISCERN scores were consistently higher in human-generated patient information leaflets compared to AI-generated information across all procedures; the mean score for the information provided by ChatGPT was 50.3 vs. 56.0 for the Circulation Foundation information leaflets (SD=3.38, p<0.001). Conclusion We concluded that AI-generated information about vascular surgical procedures is currently poor in both the readability of text and the quality of information. Patients should be directed to reputable, human-generated information sources from trusted professional bodies to supplement direct education from the clinician during the pre-procedure consultation process.

How readable and quality are online patient education materials about Helicobacter pylori?: Assessment of the readability, quality and reliability.

This study aimed to examine the readability, reliability, quality, and content of patient education materials (PEM) on the Internet about "Helicobacter pylori (H pylori)." A search was conducted on March 14, 2023, using the keyword "H pylori" in the Google search engine. The readability of PEMs was assessed using the Flesch reading ease score, FKGL, simple measure of gobbledygook, and gunning fog readability formulas. The reliability and quality of the websites were determined using the Journal of American Medical Association score, health on the net foundation code of conduct, global quality score, and DISCERN score. A total of 93 patient education websites were included in the study. In the readability analysis of PEMs, we determined that the Flesch reading ease score was 49,73 (47,46-52,00) (difficult), the mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level and simple measure of gobbledygook were 9,69 (9,26-10,12) and 9,28 (8,96-9,61) years, respectively, and the mean gunning fog score was 12,47 (12,03-12,91) (very difficult). Most of the evaluated patient educational materials were commercial websites (n = 50, 53.8%). It was found that 16.1% of the websites were of high quality according to global quality score, 30.1% were HON code certified, and 23.7% of the websites were highly reliable according to Journal of American Medical Association scores. There was no statistically significant difference between website typologies and readability (P > .05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between website typologies and quality and reliability scores (P < .005). Compared to the sixth grade level recommended by the American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health, the readability of H pylori-related internet-based PEMs is quite high. On the other hand, the reliability and quality of the PEMs were determined as moderate to poor. PEMs for issues threatening public health should be prepared with attention to recommendations on readability.

A quality analysis of internet patient information for immediate, sequential, bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS).

Due to surgical capacity pressures, induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, immediate bilateral simultaneous cataract surgery (ISBCS) has been utilised increasingly throughout the U.K. This surgical method comes with both novel risks and benefits, so the consent process must be modified. Prior randomised trials have demonstrated that appropriate online information may act as an adjunct to the surgical consent process. This study aims to assess the quality of available internet information for ISBCS. Terms searched were 'bilateral cataract surgery patient information', 'double cataract surgery patient information', and 'immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery patient information'. The Google search engine was used. The DISCERN instrument and JAMA benchmarks were used to assess healthcare information for quality. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRE), Flesch Kincaid Grade (FKG) Level and Gunning Fog Score (GFS) were used to assess for readability. HONcode certification was used to assess transparency and quality. Forty-six websites were found. The average DISCERN score was 41.3, meaning a "fair" quality which is below what many patients would anticipate discovering when trying to find information. National Healthcare Service websites had higher DISCERN scores than private healthcare-provided websites (p < 0.01; 95% CI: 1.13-1.88.). Fair patient information for ISBCS has been demonstrated. Specific internet information sources with appropriate information should be further developed, with cited sources, and patients signposted to them if felt appropriate.

Internet Health Resources on Nocturnal Enuresis: A Readability, Quality, and Accuracy Analysis.

Nocturnal enuresis is a common yet quality-of-life-limiting pediatric condition. There is an increasing trend for parents to obtain information on the disease's nature and treatment options via the internet. However, the quality of health-related information on the internet varies greatly and is largely uncontrolled and unregulated. With this study, a readability, quality, and accuracy evaluation of the health information regarding nocturnal enuresis is carried out. A questionnaire was administered to parents and patients with nocturnal enuresis to determine their use of the internet to research their condition. The most common search terms were determined, and the first 30 websites returned by the most popular search engines were used to assess the quality of information about nocturnal enuresis. Each site was categorized by type and assessed for readability using the Gunning fog score, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, and Dale-Chall score; for quality using the DISCERN score; and for accuracy by comparison to the International Children's Continence Society guidelines by three experienced pediatric urologists and nephrologists. A total of 30 websites were assessed and classified into five categories: professional (n = 13), nonprofit (n = 8), commercial (n = 4), government (n = 3), and other (n = 2). The information was considered difficult for the public to comprehend, with mean Gunning fog, SMOG index, and Dale-Chall scores of 12.1 ± 4.3, 14.1 ± 4.3, and 8.1 ± 1.3, respectively. The mean summed DISCERN score was 41 ± 11.6 out of 75. Only seven (23%) websites were considered of good quality (DISCERN score > 50). The mean accuracy score of the websites was 3.2 ± 0.6 out of 5. Commercial websites were of the poorest quality and accuracy. Websites generally scored well in providing their aims and identifying treatment benefits and options, while they lacked references and information regarding treatment risks and mechanisms. Online information about nocturnal enuresis exists for parents; however, most websites are of suboptimal quality, readability, and accuracy. Pediatric surgeons should be aware of parents' health-information-seeking behavior and be proactive in guiding parents to identify high-quality resources.

Lower Back Pain Imaging: A Readability Analysis.

The internet provides access to a myriad of educational health-related resources which are an invaluable source of information for patients. Lower back pain is a common complaint that is discussed extensively online. In this article, we aim to determine if the most commonly accessed articles about lower back pain imaging use language that can be understood by most patients. According to the American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institute of Health (NIH), this corresponds to a sixth-grade reading level. Online searches were conducted from the most commonly used search engine, Google, to assess the present state of readability on radiograph imaging for LBP. Then the top 20 populated URL links from each search were utilized based on "health & fitness" search trendsand click-through rates (CTRs). The readability of various websites was evaluated with WebFX online software that analyzed the unique websites' text when put into reader view on Firefox web browser version 116.0.3 (64-bit). Evaluation occurred via five common readability indices: the Automated Readability Index (ARI), the Coleman Liau Index (CLI), the SMOG index, the Gunning Fog Score Index (GFSI), and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level Index (FKGLI). In addition, the Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease Index (FKREI) was also used but was excluded from the calculation due to its measuring scale outside of US grade levels. The number of samples was analyzed via health and fitness-specific CTRfrom an open-access database from July 2022 to July 2023. This was used to calculate the number of persons clicking and visiting positional URLs (first URL to the 20th URL) from each unique keyword search and the rational criteria for selecting the first 20 websites for each query. Online material that included LBP imaging information was calculated to have an overall readability score of 10.745 out of the 23 websites obtained from unique searches. The range was a mean readability score of 8 to 14. Notably, 17 websites were excluded from a total of 40 websites due to duplication of the same data (URLs that resulted from both unique searches) and accessibility requiring payment (specifically, an UpToDate link). A readability score of 10.745 refers to an 11th-grade reading level. That is to say, the most commonly visited sites on Google that contain information about lower back pain imaging are, on average, five grade levels higher than the sixth-grade reading level recommended by the AMAand the NIH. Most internet content regarding lower back pain imaging is written at a reading level that is above the recommended limit defined by the AMA and NIH. To improve education about lower back pain imaging and the patient-physician relationship, we recommend guiding patients to online material that contains a reading levelat the sixth-grade level as suggested by the AMA and NIH.

Bridging the Gap Between Urological Research and Patient Understanding: The Role of Large Language Models in Automated Generation of Layperson's Summaries.

This study assessed ChatGPT's ability to generate readable, accurate, and clear layperson summaries of urological studies, and compared the performance of ChatGPT-generated summaries with original abstracts and author-written patient summaries to determine its effectiveness as a potential solution for creating accessible medical literature for the public. Articles from the top 5 ranked urology journals were selected. A ChatGPT prompt was developed following guidelines to maximize readability, accuracy, and clarity, minimizing variability. Readability scores and grade-level indicators were calculated for the ChatGPT summaries, original abstracts, and patient summaries. Two MD physicians independently rated the accuracy and clarity of the ChatGPT-generated layperson summaries. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare readability scores. Cohen's κ coefficient was used to assess interrater reliability for correctness and clarity evaluations. A total of 256 journal articles were included. The ChatGPT-generated summaries were created with an average time of 17.5 (SD 15.0) seconds. The readability scores of the ChatGPT-generated summaries were significantly better than the original abstracts, with Global Readability Score 54.8 (12.3) vs 29.8 (18.5), Flesch Kincade Reading Ease 54.8 (12.3) vs 29.8 (18.5), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level 10.4 (2.2) vs 13.5 (4.0), Gunning Fog Score 12.9 (2.6) vs 16.6 (4.1), Smog Index 9.1 (2.0) vs 12.0 (3.0), Coleman Liau Index 12.9 (2.1) vs 14.9 (3.7), and Automated Readability Index 11.1 (2.5) vs 12.0 (5.7; P < .0001 for all except Automated Readability Index, which was P = .037). The correctness rate of ChatGPT outputs was >85% across all categories assessed, with interrater agreement (Cohen's κ) between 2 independent physician reviewers ranging from 0.76-0.95. ChatGPT can create accurate summaries of scientific abstracts for patients, with well-crafted prompts enhancing user-friendliness. Although the summaries are satisfactory, expert verification is necessary for improved accuracy.

Readability assessment of patient educational materials for pediatric spinal conditions from top academic orthopedic institutions.

The Internet has become a popular source of health information for patients and their families. Healthcare experts recommend that the readability of online education materials be at or below a sixth grade reading level. This translates to a standardized Flesch Reading Ease Score between 81 and 90, which is equivalent to conversational English. However, previous studies have demonstrated that the readability of online education materials of various orthopedic topics is too advanced for the average patient. To date, the readability of online education materials for pediatric spinal conditions has not been analyzed. The objective of this study was to assess the readability of online educational materials of top pediatric orthopedic hospital websites for pediatric spinal conditions. Online patient education materials from the top 25 pediatric orthopedic institutions, as ranked by the U.S. News and World Report hospitals for pediatric orthopedics, were assessed utilizing multiple readability assessment metrics including Flesch-Kincaid, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index, and others. Correlations between academic institutional ranking, geographic location, and the use of concomitant multimedia modalities with Flesch-Kincaid scores were evaluated using a Spearman regression. Only 32% (8 of 25) of top pediatric orthopedic hospitals provided online health information at or below a sixth grade reading level. The mean Flesch-Kincaid score was 9.3 ± 2.5, Flesch Reading Ease 48.3 ± 16.2, Gunning Fog Score 10.7 ± 3.0, Coleman-Liau Index 12.1 ± 2.8, Simple Measure of the Gobbledygook Index 11.7 ± 2.1, Automated Readability Index 9.0 ± 2.7, FORCAST 11.3 ± 1.2, and Dale-Chall Readability Index 6.7 ± 1.4. There was no significant correlation between institutional ranking, geographic location, or use of video material with Flesch-Kincaid scores (p = 0.1042, p = 0.7776, p = 0.3275, respectively). Online educational material for pediatric spinal conditions from top pediatric orthopedic institutional websites is associated with excessively complex language which may limit comprehension for the majority of the US population. Economic and Decision Analysis/level III.