Readability and quality assessment of online patient education materials for spinal and epidural anesthesia.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend that health-related information for patients should be written at or below the sixth-grade level. We sought to evaluate the readability level and quality of online patient education materials regarding epidural and spinal anesthesia. METHODS: We evaluated webpages with content written specifically regarding either spinal or epidural anesthesia, identified using 11 relevant search terms, with seven commonly used readability formulas: Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), and New Dale-Chall (NDC). Two evaluators assessed the quality of the reading materials using the Brief DISCERN tool. RESULTS: We analyzed 261 webpages. The mean (standard deviation) readability scores were: FKGL = 8.8 (1.9), GFI = 11.2 (2.2), CLI = 10.3 (1.9), ARI = 8.1 (2.2), SMOG = 11.6 (1.6), FRE = 55.7 (10.8), and NDC = 5.4 (1.0). The mean grade level was higher than the recommended sixth-grade level when calculated with six of the seven readability formulas. The average Brief DISCERN score was 16.0. CONCLUSION: Readability levels of online patient education materials pertaining to epidural and spinal anesthesia are higher than recommended. When we evaluated the quality of the information using a validated tool, the materials were found to be just below the threshold of what is considered good quality. Authors of educational materials should provide not only readable but also good-quality information to enhance patient understanding.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les lignes directrices recommandent que les informations relatives à la santé destinées aux patient·es soient rédigées pour un niveau de sixième année ou en dessous. Nous avons cherché à évaluer le niveau de lisibilité et la qualité des matériels d'éducation disponibles en ligne pour les patient·es concernant l'anesthésie péridurale et la rachianesthésie. MéTHODE: Nous avons évalué les pages web dont le contenu était spécifiquement rédigé à propos de l'anesthésie rachidienne ou péridurale, identifiées à l'aide de 11 termes de recherche pertinents, avec sept formules de lisibilité couramment utilisées : Niveau scolaire Flesh-Kincaid (FKGL), Indice Gunning Fox (GFI), Indice Coleman-Liau (CLI), Indice de lisibilité automatisé (ARI), Mesure simple du charabia (SMOG), Facilité de lecture de Flesch (FRE) et New Dale-Chall (NDC). Deux personnes ont évalué la qualité du matériel de lecture à l'aide de l'outil Brief DISCERN. RéSULTATS: Nous avons analysé 261 pages web. Les scores de lisibilité moyens (écart type) étaient les suivants : FKGL = 8,8 (1,9), GFI = 11,2 (2,2), CLI = 10,3 (1,9), ARI = 8,1 (2,2), SMOG = 11,6 (1,6), FRE = 55,7 (10,8) et NDC = 5,4 (1,0). Le niveau de lecture moyen était plus élevé que le niveau recommandé de sixième année lorsqu'il a été calculé à l'aide de six des sept formules de lisibilité. Le score moyen de Brief DISCERN était de 16,0. CONCLUSION: Les niveaux de lisibilité des documents d'éducation en ligne relatifs à l'anesthésie péridurale et à la rachianesthésie destinés aux patient·es sont plus élevés que ceux recommandés. Lorsque nous avons évalué la qualité de l'information à l'aide d'un outil validé, nous avons constaté que les documents se situaient juste en dessous du seuil de ce qui est considéré comme de bonne qualité. Les personnes rédigeant du matériel éducatif doivent fournir des informations non seulement lisibles, mais aussi de bonne qualité afin d'améliorer la compréhension des patient·es.

Management of hypertrophic scars in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hypertrophic scars (HTS) are elevated scars which occur due to abnormalities in wound healing after injury and may be associated with pain, pruritus and functional impairment. Despite multiple available treatment options, there is no universal approach to treating HTS. We searched the Web of Science (Core Collection), MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Title, abstract and full-text screening, along with data extraction, were performed in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores and mean differences were used for meta-analysis. We screened 3800 abstracts and included 34 randomised controlled trials evaluating treatments for HTS in adults. Silicone and laser modalities improved VSS scores by 5.06 (95% CI: 6.78, 3.34) and 3.56 (95% CI: 5.58, 1.54), respectively. Intralesional triamcinolone combined with silicone or 5-fluorouracil was superior to intralesional triamcinolone monotherapy. Limitations of this study include exclusion of studies which did not utilise VSS, and pooling of studies based on common modalities. Further studies are needed to examine the efficacy of existing and emerging treatment modalities for HTS. Our study supports the treatment of HTS in adults with silicone gel or sheets, injected triamcinolone (preferably combined with 5-fluorouracil or silicone products), pulsed dye laser and fractionated CO2 laser.

Online educational materials for appendectomy patients have good quality but poor readability.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend patient health-related information be written at or below the sixth-grade level. This study evaluates the readability level and quality of online appendectomy patient education materials. METHODS: Webpages were evaluated using seven readability formulae: Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), and New Dale-Chall (NDC). Two evaluators assessed quality using the Brief DISCERN tool. RESULTS: Thirty seven webpages were analyzed. The mean readability scores were: FKGL = 9.11, GFI = 11.82, CLI = 10.84, ARI = 7.99, SMOG = 11.88, FRE = 51.17, and NDC = 5.48. 6 of the 7 readability formulae indicate that the materials were written at too high a level. The average Brief DISCERN score was 17.81, indicating good quality. CONCLUSIONS: Readability levels for online appendectomy patient education materials are higher than recommended but are of good quality. Authors of such materials should not only provide good quality information but also ensure readability.