ArticleMuscle & nerve2026
Cloudy or Clear? Readability and Content Analysis of Patient Education Materials in Myasthenia Gravis.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsMyasthenia gravis (MG) is a chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder that requires complex treatment decisions and sustained disease self-management. Health literacy is essential for patient understanding of MG, yet online patient education materials (PEMs) have not been systematically studied. This study aimed to evaluate the readability of MG-related PEMs, assess the inclusion of key topics, and identify characteristics associated with more accessible and comprehensive resources.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of MG-related PEMs identified through Google and Bing, evaluating readability using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Content analysis was conducted for inclusion of key MG topics. PEMs were categorized by organization type, target population age, and geographic location. Statistical tests included Wilcoxon signed-rank, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher's exact test.
resultsAll 149 PEMs exceeded the recommended 6th-grade reading level (median FRES 41.8, FKGL 11.4, SMOG 12.9; p < 0.001). Community organization PEMs were more readable than academic PEMs (median FKGL 10.4 vs. 11.6; p = 0.02, median FRES 44.5 vs. 39.4; p = 0.01). Frequently included topics were MG definition (94%), symptoms (93%), and immunotherapy (85%), while medications to avoid (30%), myasthenic crisis (62%), and mental health (10%) were the least included. Readability varied by topic, with immunotherapy and thymectomy sections being the most complex. DISCUSSION: MG PEMs are written above recommended readability levels, posing barriers to comprehension. Improving readability and addressing gaps in critical topics, such as medication safety, myasthenic crisis, and mental health could enhance patient understanding and support informed decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.