Search

In the digital age, the internet has become a primary source for patient education in orthodontics. However, the effectiveness of these online resources largely depends on their readability and comprehensibility. The main aim of our research was to assess the readability of the ten most popular websites dedicated to orthodontic treatment. Additionally, we aimed to ascertain the educational level required to comprehend the information provided on these websites. The selection of the top 10 patient-centric English language websites was conducted through a search query for "orthodontic treatment" on the Google Chrome browser. The assessment of text readability was conducted by employing six different readability indices, The readability formulas website (https://readabilityformulas.com) was utilized as a resource for this purpose. The researchers calculated the average Flesch Reading Ease index score to be 58.60, with a standard deviation of 10.17. According to GFI, these websites necessitate an average of 12.52 years of formal education, with a standard variation of 2.15, in order to aid understanding. The mean grade level was found to be 10.40, with a standard deviation of 1.90. Our research indicates that internet resources are crucial in orthodontic education for Generation Z, serving as a platform for efficient learning, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic in creating a general knowledge a level of moderate-complexity. Orthodontic professionals and website developers should be encouraged to consider the readability of their content to ensure it meets the needs of a diverse patient population. However, the utilization of internet information should not be regarded as a comprehensive replacement for a comprehensive treatment process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to assess the quality and readability of online resources regarding postoperative pain control for patients having undergone total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), along with identifying gaps among the types of information. Three search engines were used to conduct internet searches utilizing a combination of TSA and pain management search phrases. The top 20 web pages from each search engine were gathered, reviewed, and scored by five different evaluators. Scoring was performed using 30-point criteria, integrated into an overall quality of resource (QR) score considered significant for patient education about TSA and pain management according to American Pain Society and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' published recommendations (Table I). Domain scores (route of administration, type of analgesia, opioid-specific, and general guidance) were calculated by summing the total points and dividing by the total possible score for each domain. The reading level of the Flesch-Kinkaid grade level, the Flesch reading ease, and the simple measure of gobbledygook index was also assessed. The overall readability was low, with a mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level score of 10.3 ± 2.0 and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook score of 9.9 ± 1.5. According to this index, only one website (2.3%) was written below the suggested 6th grade reading level. There was a mean QR score of 9.6/30 points, ranging from 2 to 22 (Table II). Most resources (90.9%) did not achieve greater than 50% of the total available points (greater than 15 out of 30). Of the domains, the mean score for route of administration was 31.8%, types of analgesia was 43.6%, opioid-specific was 11.4%, and general guidance was 43.2%. Opioid-specific scores were lower than all three other domain scores (all P <.001). According to our findings, current online resources for pain management following TSA are written above the average literacy level for adults in the United States and lack educational content, especially regarding opioid-specific discussion and recommendations. Resources must target gaps in online patient education to better inform patients of postoperative pain control, convey expectations, and encourage patient-physician conversations and decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT, a publicly available artificial intelligence large language model, has allowed for sophisticated artificial intelligence technology on demand. Indeed, use of ChatGPT has already begun to make its way into medical research. However, the medical community has yet to understand the capabilities and ethical considerations of artificial intelligence within this context, and unknowns exist regarding ChatGPT's writing abilities, accuracy, and implications for authorship. We hypothesize that human reviewers and artificial intelligence detection software differ in their ability to correctly identify original published abstracts and artificial intelligence-written abstracts in the subjects of Gynecology and Urogynecology. We also suspect that concrete differences in writing errors, readability, and perceived writing quality exist between original and artificial intelligence-generated text. Twenty-five articles published in high-impact medical journals and a collection of Gynecology and Urogynecology journals were selected. ChatGPT was prompted to write 25 corresponding artificial intelligence-generated abstracts, providing the abstract title, journal-dictated abstract requirements, and select original results. The original and artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were reviewed by blinded Gynecology and Urogynecology faculty and fellows to identify the writing as original or artificial intelligence-generated. All abstracts were analyzed by publicly available artificial intelligence detection software GPTZero, Originality, and Copyleaks, and were assessed for writing errors and quality by artificial intelligence writing assistant Grammarly. A total of 157 reviews of 25 original and 25 artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were conducted by 26 faculty and 4 fellows; 57% of original abstracts and 42.3% of artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were correctly identified, yielding an average accuracy of 49.7% across all abstracts. All 3 artificial intelligence detectors rated the original abstracts as less likely to be artificial intelligence-written than the ChatGPT-generated abstracts (GPTZero, 5.8% vs 73.3%; P <.001; Originality, 10.9% vs 98.1%; P <.001; Copyleaks, 18.6% vs 58.2%; P <.001). The performance of the 3 artificial intelligence detection software differed when analyzing all abstracts (P =.03), original abstracts (P <.001), and artificial intelligence-generated abstracts (P <.001). Grammarly text analysis identified more writing issues and correctness errors in original than in artificial intelligence abstracts, including lower Grammarly score reflective of poorer writing quality (82.3 vs 88.1; P =.006), more total writing issues (19.2 vs 12.8; P <.001), critical issues (5.4 vs 1.3; P <.001), confusing words (0.8 vs 0.1; P =.006), misspelled words (1.7 vs 0.6; P =.02), incorrect determiner use (1.2 vs 0.2; P =.002), and comma misuse (0.3 vs 0.0; P =.005). Human reviewers are unable to detect the subtle differences between human and ChatGPT-generated scientific writing because of artificial intelligence's ability to generate tremendously realistic text. Artificial intelligence detection software improves the identification of artificial intelligence-generated writing, but still lacks complete accuracy and requires programmatic improvements to achieve optimal detection. Given that reviewers and editors may be unable to reliably detect artificial intelligence-generated texts, clear guidelines for reporting artificial intelligence use by authors and implementing artificial intelligence detection software in the review process will need to be established as artificial intelligence chatbots gain more widespread use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Online patient education materials (OPEMs) are an increasingly popular resource for women seeking information about breast cancer. The AMA recommends written patient material to be at or below a 6th grade level to meet the general public's health literacy. Metrics such as quality, understandability, and actionability also heavily influence the usability of health information, and thus should be evaluated alongside readability. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine: 1) Average readability scores and reporting methodologies of breast cancer readability studies; and 2) Inclusion frequency of additional health literacy-associated metrics. A registered systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase.com , CENTRAL via Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov in June 2022 in adherence with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Eligible studies performed readability analyses on English-language breast cancer-related OPEMs. Study characteristics, readability data, and reporting of non-readability health literacy metrics were extracted. Meta-analysis estimates were derived from generalized linear mixed modeling. The meta-analysis included 30 studies yielding 4462 OPEMs. Overall, average readability was 11.81 (95% CI [11.14, 12.49]), with a significant difference (p < 0.001) when grouped by OPEM categories. Commercial organizations had the highest average readability at 12.2 [11.3,13.0]; non-profit organizations had one of the lowest at 11.3 [10.6,12.0]. Readability also varied by index, with New Fog, Lexile, and FORCAST having the lowest average scores (9.4 [8.6, 10.3], 10.4 [10.0, 10.8], and 10.7 [10.2, 11.1], respectively). Only 57% of studies calculated average readability with more than two indices. Only 60% of studies assessed other OPEM metrics associated with health literacy. Average readability of breast cancer OPEMs is nearly double the AMA's recommended 6th grade level. Readability and other health literacy-associated metrics are inconsistently reported in the current literature. Standardization of future readability studies, with a focus on holistic evaluation of patient materials, may aid shared decision-making and be critical to increased screening rates and breast cancer awareness. • Average readability was 11.81, twice the recommended AMA 6th grade reading level. • Readability studies measure and report readability with variable methodologies. • Many readability studies (40%) do not measure additional health literacy metrics. • Standardizing readability studies may improve evaluation and usability of OPEMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the readability, understandability, and actionability of online patient education materials (OPEM) related to breast cancer risk assessment. We queried seven English-language search terms related to breast cancer risk assessment: breast cancer high-risk, breast cancer risk factors, breast cancer family history, BRCA, breast cancer risk assessment, Tyrer-Cuzick, and Gail model. Websites were categorized as: academic/hospital-based, commercial, government, non-profit or academic based on the organization hosting the site. Grade-level readability of qualifying websites and categories was determined using readability metrics and generalized estimating equations based on written content only. Readability scores were compared to the recommended parameters set by the American Medical Association (AMA). Understandability and actionability of OPEM related to breast cancer high-risk were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and compared to criteria set at ≥70%. Descriptive statistics and inter-rater reliability analysis were utilized. 343 websites were identified, of which 162 met study inclusion criteria. The average grade readability score was 12.1 across all websites (range 10.8–13.4). No website met the AMA recommendation. Commercial websites demonstrated the highest overall average readability of 13.1. Of the 26 websites related to the search term breast cancer high-risk, the average understandability and actionability scores were 62% and 34% respectively, both below criteria. OPEM on breast cancer risk assessment available to the general public do not meet criteria for readability, understandability, or actionability. To ensure patient comprehension of medical information online, future information should be published in simpler, more appropriate terms. • The average grade readability score of breast cancer risk assessment online education materials was 12.1 • No website met the AMA recommendation of a sixth-grade reading level. • To ensure patient comprehension, future information should be published in simpler, more appropriate terms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to determine the readability level of information on 100 unique websites with information on preeclampsia. Five different readability measures were used to measure each website's readability via an online readability calculator. All five readability measures determined that a vast majority of the sites sampled were written at unacceptable levels (89%+). Independent one-tailed t-tests (α = 0.05) determined that there was no statistical difference in the readability scores of.com vs the other websites on any of the 5 readability assessments. We recommend that efforts be made to simplify language in accordance with plain language recommendations for health information in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Childhood otitis media with effusion (OME) is a frequent disease often misunderstood by parents. Information on the Internet is of variable quality and readability. The aim of this study was to measure the quality and readability of French websites related to OME. An advanced Google search was conducted using the terms "Otite séro-muqueuse OR Otite séreuse". Quality was assessed on DISCERN criteria. Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease Scoring (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and a Fry graph. Medians and standard deviations were calculated. Correlation between quality and readability was assessed on Spearman r coefficient. The first ten websites meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were evaluated. One had been updated during the last 12 months. Median DISCERN score was 49 ± 13.7/80. Median FRES score was 46 ± 9.5/100. Median USA grade-level estimated by FKGL and SMOG respectively was 11 ± 1.7 and 12 ± 1.5. Six websites had Fry score > 12. One website showed high quality. One had a readability score in the target range (below 9th grade reading level (age 14–15)) according to FRES and FKGL. A suggestive correlation was found between lower SMOG readability and higher quality: r = 0.72 (P = 0.024). Three websites followed the most recent scientific guidelines. Online information about OME was of variable quality and readability. Good quality information tended to be less easily understandable by parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Only 6% of ED discharge instructions of mTBI complied with national clinical practice guidelines's recommendations. • The mTBI discharge instructions provided at ED were difficult to understand and act upon. • Readability level of mTBI discharge instructions can be optimised without attenuating the important information. • No discharge instructions listed post-concussion symptoms and yet great emphasis given only on emergency symptoms of mTBI. Emergency departments (EDs) routinely provide discharge instructions due to a large number of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) being discharged home directly from ED. This study aims to evaluate the quality of available mTBI discharge instructions provided by EDs of Malaysia government hospitals. All 132 EDs were requested for a copy of written discharge instruction given to the patients. The mTBI discharge instructions were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment-Printable Tool (PEMAT-P) for understandability and actionability. Readability was measured using an online readability tool of Malay text. The content was compared against the discharge instructions recommended by established guidelines. 49 articles were eligible for the study. 26 of the articles met the criteria of understandability, and 3 met the criteria for actionability. The average readability level met the ability of average adult. Most of the discharge instructions focused on emergency symptoms, and none contained post-concussion features. Majority of the discharge instructions provided were appropriate for average people to read but difficult to understand and act upon. Important information was neglected in most discharge instructions. Thus, revision and future development of mTBI discharge instruction should consider health literacy demand and cognitive ability to process such information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inpatient discharge education is often suboptimal. Measures of parents' perceived comprehension of discharge instructions are included in national metrics given linkage to morbidity; few studies compare parents' perceived and actual comprehension. We 1) compared parent perceived and actual comprehension of discharge instructions and 2) assessed associations between plan complexity and parent health literacy with overestimation of comprehension (perceive comprehension but lack actual comprehension). Prospective cohort study of English/Spanish-speaking parents (n = 192) of inpatients ≤12 years old and discharged on ≥1 daily medication from an urban public hospital. We used McNemar's tests to compare parent perceived (agree/strongly agree on 5-point Likert scale) and actual comprehension (concordance of parent report with medical record) of instructions (domains: medications, appointments, return precautions, and restrictions). Generalized estimating equations were performed to assess associations between low parent health literacy (Newest Vital Sign score ≤3) and plan complexity with overestimation of comprehension. Medication side effects were the domain with lowest perceived comprehension (80%), while >95% of parents perceived comprehension for other domains. Actual comprehension varied by domain (41%–87%) and was lower than perceived comprehension. Most (84%) parents overestimated comprehension in ≥1 domain. Plan complexity (adjusted odds ratio 3.6; 95% confidence interval 2.9–4.7) and low health literacy (adjusted odds ratio 1.9; 1.3–2.6) were associated with overestimation of comprehension. Parental perceived comprehension of discharge instructions overestimated actual comprehension in most domains. Plan complexity and low health literacy were associated with overestimation of comprehension. Future interventions should incorporate assessment of actual comprehension and standardization of discharge instructions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this pilot study, we developed and assessed acceptability of a brochure for women with dense breasts. We measured Flesch-Kincaid Readability of 22 existing breast density educational materials. We then developed a brochure and tested it in two populations of women: 44 safety net hospital patients and 13 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium stakeholders. Average grade score of existing materials was 10.0 (range: 5.5–12.7). Our brochure had a grade score of 5.9, and patients reported it was easy to understand. Our plain language brochure could improve patient understanding following mandatory dense breast notification. • Readability of 22 existing breast density educational materials was assessed. • Guided by patient advocates, we developed a print breast density educational brochure. • Brochure acceptability was assessed in focus groups and an online discussion group. • Existing educational materials had low readability. • Our brochure had high readability and can be used to support women with dense breasts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim and objective of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of leaflet and online Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery patient information leaflets (PILs). The quality, readability and grade level of each PIL was assessed using the DISCERN, Flesch Reading Ease and Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level instruments respectively. In total, 140 patient information leaflets were assessed. For both leaflet and online PILs, many items of the DISCERN instrument were deemed of low quality and poorly reported. The median overall quality score was 30.2. Variation in the quality and readability scores between leaflet and online PILs and those produced by various societies was evident. Overall, PILs were deemed to be of moderate quality. Online PILs were of lower quality, more difficult to read and aimed at a higher reading age level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Study Design Descriptive. Background Dupuytren's contracture is a common disorder involving fibrosis of the palmar fascia. As patients are increasingly using online materials to gather health care information, it is imperative to assess the readability and appropriateness of this content. The recommended grade level for patient educational materials is seventh to eighth grade according to the National Institutes of Health. This study aims to assess the readability and content of online patient resources for Dupuytren's contracture. Purpose of the Study Evaluate readability of online patient education materials for Dupuytren's contracture. Methods The largest public search engine, Google, was queried using the term "Dupuytren's contracture surgery" on February 26, 2016. Location filters were disabled, and sponsored results were excluded to avoid any inadvertent search bias. The 10 most popular Web sites were identified, and all relevant patient-directed information within 1 click from the original site was downloaded and saved as plain text. Readability was analyzed using 6 established analyses (Readable.io , Added Bytes, Ltd, UK). Results Analysis of 10 Web sites demonstrates an average grade level of at least 11th grade (Flesch-Kincaid grade level, 10.2; Gunning-Fog grade level, 13.1; Coleman-Liau grade level, 14.4; Simple Measure of Gobbledygook grade level, 10.0; automated readability grade level, 9.7; and average grade level, 11.5). Overall Flesch-Kincaid reading ease index was 46.4, which is difficult. No single article was at the recommended reading level. Conclusions Online materials available for treatment of Dupuytren's contracture are above recommended reading levels and do not include a comprehensive explanation of treatment options, which may negatively impact decision making in patients seeking treatment for this condition. Surgeons and hand therapists alike should be cognizant of available online patient materials and make efforts to develop and provide more appropriate materials. Level of Evidence V. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our aim was to assess the quality and readability of online resources regarding common cosmetic maxillofacial procedures. We searched Google for “rhytidectomy”, “rhinoplasty”, “orthognathic surgery”, “genioplasty”, “malar implants”, “blepharoplasty”, “otoplasty”, and related terms. In each case we assessed the top 50 results for quality and readability. Quality was measured using the DISCERN questionnaire, benchmark criteria published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and accreditation by the HONcode (Health On the Net code). The Flesch-Kincaid reading grade, Flesch reading ease score, Gunning’s fog index, and the Coleman-Liau index, were used to measure readability. A total of 350 sites were assessed and 200 were included in the study. The mean (SD) JAMA and DISCERN scores for all included websites indicated poor quality (0.49/4 (1.07) and 32.77/80 (10.57), respectively). Only eight sites (4%) were certified by the HONcode. There was a significant association between low DISCERN scores and Google Ads (p = 0.009) and between low DISCERN scores and the websites of private clinicians or hospitals (p < 0.001). The mean (SD) Flesch reading ease score and Gunning’s fog score both indicated poor readability that required a moderately high level of literacy (50.59 (11.82) and 13.83 (2.76), respectively). The Flesch-Kincaid and Coleman-Liau scores indicated similar results. Adherence to the JAMA benchmark, certification by the HONcode, and relevant selection on Google Ads would improve quality. The avoidance of medical jargon and use of shorter sentences would improve readability and provide patients with comprehensible explanations that would allow them to have realistic expectations and take responsibility for their own health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The idea that education in America is deteriorating is emotionally charged and controversial. While there is no disputing that education levels in the United States continue to rise, there is also a pervasive notion that this was accomplished by gradually reducing the readability level and general difficulty of textbooks. One tool often employed in the defense of education is the employment of readability indices in the evaluation of textbooks. There are a variety of these readability indices that serve the purpose of indicating a grade level for a particular piece of writing (Kinkaid, et. al., 1975). It’s relatively easy to find dozens of sites where a teacher or interested person can submit text or a URL with the purpose of finding out the reading level expressed as a grade level for a particular piece of text. Most sites report on five different indices: Automated Readability Index, Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kinkaid Score, Gunning-Fogg Index, and SMOG Index (Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook). This paper addresses these indices, their applications, and the drawbacks of their use.. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Optometry is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction This study evaluated the readability, accessibility and quality of information pertaining to breast reconstruction post mastectomy on the Internet in the English language. Methods Using the Google © search engine the keywords “Breast reconstruction post mastectomy” were searched for. We analyzed the top 75 sites. The Flesch Reading Ease Score and Gunning Fog Index were calculated to assess readability. Web site quality was assessed objectively using the University of Michigan Consumer Health Web site Evaluation Checklist. Accessibility was determined using an automated accessibility tool. In addition, the country of origin, type of organisation producing the site and presence of Health on the Net (HoN) Certification status was recorded. Results The Web sites were difficult to read and comprehend. The mean Flesch Reading Ease scores were 55.5. The mean Gunning Fog Index scores was 8.6. The mean Michigan score was 34.8 indicating weak quality of websites. Websites with HoN certification ranked higher in the search results (p = 0.007). Website quality was influenced by organisation type (p < 0.0001) with academic/healthcare, not for profit and government sites having higher Michigan scores. 20% of sites met the minimum accessibility criteria. Conclusions Internet information on breast reconstruction post mastectomy and procedures is poorly written and we suggest that Webpages providing information must be made more readable and accessible. We suggest that health professionals should recommend Web sites that are easy to read and contain high-quality surgical information. Medical information on the Internet should be readable, accessible, reliable and of a consistent quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study determined the completeness, accuracy, and reading level of Wikipedia patient drug information compared with the corresponding United States product insert medication guides.Methods: From the Top 200 Drugs of 2012, the top 33 medications with medication guides were analyzed. Medication guides and Wikipedia pages were downloaded on a single date to ensure continuity of Wikipedia content. To quantify the completeness and accuracy of the Wikipedia medication information, a scoring system was adapted from previously published work and compared with the 7 core domains of medication guides.Results: Wikipedia did not provide patient information that was as complete or accurate as the information within the medication guides: 14.73 out of 42 (SD 5.75). Wikipedia medication pages were written at a significantly higher reading level compared with medication guides (Flesch reading ease score 52.93 vs. 33.24 [P <0.001]; Flesch-Kincaid grade level 10.26 vs. 6.86 [P <0.001]).Conclusion: Wikipedia medication pages include incomplete and inaccurate patient information compared with the corresponding product medication guides. Wikipedia patient drug information was also written at reading levels above that of medication guides and substantially above the average United States consumer health literacy level. As the public use of Wikipedia increases, the need for educating patients about the quality of information on Wikipedia and the availability of adequate patient education resources is ever more important to minimize inaccuracies and incomplete information sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of an educational intervention on prescription (Rx) label comprehension and functional health literacy (FHL) in older adults. Outcomes were compared between current and redesigned Rx labels. Additional objectives were to examine the correlation between 2 outcome measures and to determine the characterizing variables that are predictors for the outcome measures.Setting: Southern California, January 2013 to March 2015.Practice Description: Older adults (>55 y) taking 2 or more Rx medications daily were recruited at senior and community centers by a trained data collection team.Practice Innovation: The validated Modified LaRue Tool (MLT) tested Rx label comprehension before and after a short, focused educational intervention and correlated it with FHL.Interventions: A simple one-on-one education provided by student pharmacists that was focused on critical elements of an Rx label.Evaluation: Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOFHLA) and MLT scores of all current and redesigned label participants at baseline and follow-up.Results: Participants using redesigned Rx labels (n = 90) showed significantly higher MLT scores than with current Rx labels (n = 28) both before (23.0 ± 2.3 vs. 21.0 ± 2.4; P <0.001) and after educational intervention (23.8 ± 1.7 vs. 22.1 ± 3.1; P <0.001). With the use of analysis of covariance, intervention participants using redesigned label (n = 48) showed significant improvement in both MLT (23.1 ± 2.0 to 24.3 ± 1.0; P <0.001) and STOFHLA (29.8 ± 7.5 to 31.5 ± 5.7; P = 0.011) scores, whereas intervention participants using current Rx label (n = 16) did not show significant improvement in either MLT (P = 0.530) or STOFHLA (P = 0.215) scores. Effect size of intervention (redesigned label) was 0.77, indicating practical significance. MLT and STOFHLA scores were significantly correlated with each other, and age and education level were common significant predictors for both outcomes.Conclusion: Older adults using redesigned Rx labels showed improved Rx label comprehension and FHL after educational intervention, as well as higher comprehension compared with those using current Rx labels. Use of a redesigned Rx label and a simple educational intervention should be encouraged to improve Rx label comprehension and FHL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• This study investigates whether linguistic and meta characteristics of journal articles in economics are associated with scientific prestige. • Prestige is operationalized as the normalized SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) of the journal that the article was published in. • The data set of over 200,000 articles is segmented into topically homogeneous clusters using an LDA topic model. • Beta regression models are estimated using componentwise gradient boosting to determine the most important correlates of scientific prestige. • In summary, several linguistic and meta features are found to be associated with scientific prestige consistently across clusters. In competitive research environments, scholars have a natural interest to maximize the prestige associated with their scientific work. In order to identify factors that might help them address this goal more effectively, the scientometric literature has tried to link linguistic and meta characteristics of academic papers to the associated degree of scientific prestige, conceptualized as cumulative citation counts. In this paper, we take an alternative approach that instead understands scientific prestige in terms of the rankings of the journals that the articles appeared in, as such rankings are routinely used as surrogate research quality indicators. For the purpose of determining the most important drivers of suchlike prestige, we use state-of-the-art text mining tools to extract 344 interpretable features from a large corpus of over 200,000 journal articles in economics. We then estimate beta regression models to investigate the relationship between these predictors and a cross-sectionally standardized version of SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) in multiple topically homogeneous clusters. In so doing, we also reinvestigate the bafflegab theory , according to which more prestigious research papers tend to be less readable, in a methodologically novel way. Our results show the consistently most informative predictors to be associated with the length of the paper, the span of coreference chains in its full text, the deployment of a personal and moderately informal writing style, the "density" of the article in terms of sentences per page, international and institutional collaboration in research teams and the references cited in the paper. Moreover, we identify various linguistic intricacies that matter in the association between readability and scientific prestige, which suggest this relationship to be more complicated than previously assumed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the completeness and readability of information found in Wikipedia for leading dietary supplements and assess the accuracy of this information with regard to safety (including use during pregnancy/ lactation), contraindications, drug interactions, therapeutic uses, and dosing. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of Wikipedia articles. Interventions: The contents of Wikipedia articles for the 19 top-selling herbal supplements were retrieved on July 24, 2012, and evaluated for organization, content, accuracy (as compared with information in two leading dietary supplement references) and readability. Main Outcome Measures: Accuracy of Wikipedia articles. Results: No consistency was noted in how much information was included in each Wikipedia article, how the information was organized, what major categories were used, and where safety and therapeutic information was located in the article. All articles in Wikipedia contained information on therapeutic uses and adverse effects but several lacked information on drug interactions, pregnancy, and contraindications. Wikipedia articles had 26%-75% of therapeutic uses and 76%-100% of adverse effects listed in the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database and/or Natural Standard. Overall, articles were written at a 13.5-grade level, and all were at a ninth-grade level or above. Conclusion: Articles in Wikipedia in mid-2012 for the 19 top-selling herbal supplements were frequently incomplete, of variable quality, and sometimes inconsistent with reputable sources of information on these products. Safety information was particularly inconsistent among the articles. Patients and health professionals should not rely solely on Wikipedia for information on these herbal supplements when treatment decisions are being made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: Vocabulary and writing style have been shown to affect the readability of patient-education materials. Readability is generally defined as the ease of understanding or comprehension because of the style of writing. Microsoft Word software (Microsoft Corporation, Bellevue, WA) can quantify and report readability statistics, providing both the Flesch Reading Ease score and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score of selected documents. Methods: This study evaluated the readability of 22 endodontic patient education web sites and 15 endodontic patient education brochures. The web sites and brochures were arbitrarily selected based on availability, reputation of the source, and relevance to endodontic patients. Results: The Flesch Reading Ease score and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score were determined for the 37 selected materials. The Flesch Reading Ease scores varied between 44.4 and 76.6, and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores ranged between 4.5 and 10.6. Conclusions: These findings remind practitioners that some patients may have difficulty reading some endodontic educational materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We first advocate that the AUML (Agent Unified Modeling Language) notation, even in its new version, is not precise enough to adequately describe protocols. This problem was long identified by Harel and we propose to follow his solution: extend sequence diagrams with a “prechart”, i.e. single out the initiation sequence of the protocol. This new notation keeps readability and intuition, but is also technically adequate and is given a formal semantics. It actually is a form of simple temporal logics, equipped with a game-based semantics, which is appropriate for modeling agent-based systems. We then go on to study its complexity. Unsurprisingly, the version with protocol roles is undecidable. The main interesting problem is to synthesize agents that follow the protocol described. Surprisingly, it is undecidable even if we remove roles, alternatives, loops, asynchronous communication, conditions, constraints, negations (already removed in AUML). The complexity of checking whether a society of agents obeys a protocol given in this trivial notation is also surprisingly high: it is PSPACE-complete, like temporal logic, while we show that this simple language is strongly less expressive than temporal logic. Notations in-between have the expected increase in expressiveness, but no increase in complexity. This justifies the use of a language including alternatives, asynchronous communication and conditions, since it increases expressiveness with no cost in complexity. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: The objective of this study was to measure agreement between three treatment decisional capacity assessment instruments in mild to moderate dementia.Method: Subjects (N=79) were recruited from the community. Rating agreement was evaluated with kappa statistics.Results: Three-way agreement was fair for overall capacity (kappa=0.451), very good for understanding (0.618), very poor for choice (0.158), and no better than chance for reasoning and appreciation. Pairwise agreement showed a similar pattern.Conclusions: With the exception of understanding, current treatment decisional capacity assessment instruments do not consistently agree with one another in assessing treatment decision abilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers suggestions to pharmacists regarding selecting, applying, and interpreting readability formulas. It states that medication information can be routinely communicated on the Internet regardless of veracity and readability, which underscore the importance of the pharmacist's role, and mentions that pharmacists should disclose the text sample size, text location within the document. It notes availability of guidelines Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Background: The demand for health information online is increasing rapidly without clear governance.Objective: We aim to evaluate the credibility, quality, readability, and accuracy of online patient information concerning endometriosis.Study Design: We searched 5 popular Internet search engines: aol.com, ask.com, bing.com, google.com, and yahoo.com. We developed a search strategy in consultation with patients with endometriosis, to identify relevant World Wide Web pages. Pages containing information related to endometriosis for women with endometriosis or the public were eligible. Two independent authors screened the search results. World Wide Web pages were evaluated using validated instruments across 3 of the 4 following domains: (1) credibility (White Paper instrument; range 0-10); (2) quality (DISCERN instrument; range 0-85); and (3) readability (Flesch-Kincaid instrument; range 0-100); and (4) accuracy (assessed by a prioritized criteria developed in consultation with health care professionals, researchers, and women with endometriosis based on the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology guidelines [range 0-30]). We summarized these data in diagrams, tables, and narratively.Results: We identified 750 World Wide Web pages, of which 54 were included. Over a third of Web pages did not attribute authorship and almost half the included pages did not report the sources of information or academic references. No World Wide Web page provided information assessed as being written in plain English. A minority of web pages were assessed as high quality. A single World Wide Web page provided accurate information: evidentlycochrane.net. Available information was, in general, skewed toward the diagnosis of endometriosis. There were 16 credible World Wide Web pages, however the content limitations were infrequently discussed. No World Wide Web page scored highly across all 4 domains.Conclusion: In the unlikely event that a World Wide Web page reports high-quality, accurate, and credible health information it is typically challenging for a lay audience to comprehend. Health care professionals, and the wider community, should inform women with endometriosis of the risk of outdated, inaccurate, or even dangerous information online. The implementation of an information standard will incentivize providers of online information to establish and adhere to codes of conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses aspects of the Common Rule for the research that involves the use of humans or specimens. It highlights the proposed changes to the rule to pertain direct patient care services for collecting human specimens or data. It also cites the importance of medical information related to human specimens to enhance patient care services.

An abstract of the article "Content Validity of the Patient-Report Hamilton Inventory for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome," by Tara L. Packham and Joy MacDermid is presented.