Readability of Patient Education Materials for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

IF 1.7 4区医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001769

Anil Sedani, Eric Kholodovsky, Justin Trapana, Evan Trapana

{"title":"Readability of Patient Education Materials for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.","authors":"Anil Sedani, Eric Kholodovsky, Justin Trapana, Evan Trapana","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Study design: Descriptive study.Summary of background data: Patients commonly use online patient education materials (PEM) to learn about anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the readability of patient education materials on anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.Methods: The Google search engine was queried using the term \"Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion patient information.\" The first 25 websites meeting inclusion criteria for this term were evaluated. Readability scores were automatically calculated by transferring the texts to http://www.readabilityformulas.com . Descriptive statistics were calculated for each measure using SPSS version 28.0.0.Results: The mean average reading level was 9.2±2.4. The mean readability score out of 100 for the FK Reading Ease Score was 55.2±8.6. The remaining scores were: Gunning Fog, 12.7±2.2; FK Grade Level, 8.9±2.0; The Coleman Liau Index, 11.0±1.7; SMOG Index, 48.1±197.0; Automated Readability Index, 8.1±3.11; Linsear Write Formula, 9.8±2.1. Only 2 of the PEMs were written at or below a sixth grade level and only 7 were written at or below an eighth grade reading level.Conclusion: Patient readability is an important component of patient care and the current readability level of ACDF PEMs is insufficient. At their current state, PEMs may not allow a significant portion of the population to understand the nature of their condition and procedure properly.Level of evidence: Level III.","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"493-497"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001769","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Descriptive study.

Summary of background data: Patients commonly use online patient education materials (PEM) to learn about anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the readability of patient education materials on anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Methods: The Google search engine was queried using the term "Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion patient information." The first 25 websites meeting inclusion criteria for this term were evaluated. Readability scores were automatically calculated by transferring the texts to http://www.readabilityformulas.com . Descriptive statistics were calculated for each measure using SPSS version 28.0.0.

Results: The mean average reading level was 9.2±2.4. The mean readability score out of 100 for the FK Reading Ease Score was 55.2±8.6. The remaining scores were: Gunning Fog, 12.7±2.2; FK Grade Level, 8.9±2.0; The Coleman Liau Index, 11.0±1.7; SMOG Index, 48.1±197.0; Automated Readability Index, 8.1±3.11; Linsear Write Formula, 9.8±2.1. Only 2 of the PEMs were written at or below a sixth grade level and only 7 were written at or below an eighth grade reading level.

Conclusion: Patient readability is an important component of patient care and the current readability level of ACDF PEMs is insufficient. At their current state, PEMs may not allow a significant portion of the population to understand the nature of their condition and procedure properly.

Level of evidence: Level III.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

颈椎前路椎间盘切除术与融合术患者教育材料的可读性。

研究设计：描述性研究。背景资料总结：患者通常使用在线患者教育材料（PEM）来学习颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合（ACDF）。目的：本研究的目的是评估前路颈椎椎间盘切除术和融合术患者教育材料的可读性。方法：使用谷歌搜索引擎查询“前路颈椎椎间盘切除术和融合患者信息”。对前25个符合本学期入选标准的网站进行了评估。通过将文本传输到http://www.readabilityformulas.com自动计算可读性分数。采用SPSS 28.0.0版对各项指标进行描述性统计。结果：平均阅读水平为9.2±2.4。FK阅读轻松评分的平均可读性得分为55.2±8.6（满分为100）。其余评分为：射击雾，12.7±2.2；FK等级8.9±2.0；科尔曼-廖指数，11.0±1.7；烟雾指数，48.1±197.0；自动可读性指数，8.1±3.11；Linsear Write公式，9.8±2.1。只有2份PEMs的写作水平达到或低于六年级水平，只有7份的写作水平达到或低于八年级的阅读水平。结论：患者易读性是患者护理的重要组成部分，目前ACDF PEMs的易读性水平不足。在他们目前的状态下，PEMs可能不允许很大一部分人正确理解他们的病情和程序的本质。证据等级：三级。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Spine Surgery Medicine-Surgery

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

5.30%

发文量

236

期刊介绍： Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure. Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.