MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Readability of patient educational materials in venous thrombosis: analysis of the 2021 ESVS guidelines and comparison with other medical societies information

2022· article· en· W4210894438 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Enrique M. San Norberto, Elena GARCÍA-RIVERA, Álvaro Revilla, J. Herbert Taylor, Carlos Vaquero

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Angiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReadabilityThrombosisVascular surgeryPopulationPost-hoc analysisVenous thrombosisReading (process)SurgeryInternal medicineCardiac surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In order for patients to comprehend health related information, it must be written at a level that can be readily understood by the intended population. During 2021 the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) published a sub-section about information for patients into its Guidelines on the Management of Venous Thrombosis. METHODS: Nine readability measures were used to evaluate the patient educational material regarding venous thrombosis published by seven medical societies: ESVS, Society for Vascular Medicine (SVM), Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland (VS), Australia and New Zealand Society for Vascular Surgery (ANZSVS), Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery (CSVS) and American Heart Association (AHA). RESULTS: The mean reading grade level (RGL) for all the 58 recommendations was 10.61 (range 6.4-14.5) and the mean Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) was 56.10 (51.3-62.9), corresponding to a "fairly difficult" reading level. The mean RGL of the ESVS recommendations (11.45, 95% CI, 9.90-13.00) was significantly higher than the others. Post-hoc analysis determined a significant difference between the ESVS and the SVS (10.86, 95% CI, 9.84-11.91) recommendations (P=0.005). All the patient's education information published by the medical societies presented a RGL higher than recommended. The fifteen sub-sections of the information for patients included into the ESVS clinical guidelines presented a mean RGL above 9.5 points, revealing that no one (0%) was written at or below the recommended GRL. The mean FRE was 47.63 (28.2-61.6), corresponding to a "difficult" reading level. CONCLUSIONS: Venous thrombosis patient educational materials produced by leading medical societies have readability scores that are above the recommended levels. The innovative patient's information included into the ESVS venous thrombosis guidelines represents an important advance in the amelioration of the medical information for patients, but their readability should be improved to adapt the understanding to the general population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational AngiologySame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207