BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess readability of articles shared on Twitter and analyze differences between them to determine whether messages and written posts are at reading levels comprehended by the general public. METHODS: Top-rated #PlasticSurgery tweets (per Twitter algorithm) in January of 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Text from tweeted links to full, open-access, and society/institutional patient information articles were extracted. Readability was analyzed using the following established tests: Coleman-Liau, Flesch-Kincaid, FORCAST Readability Formula, Fry Graph, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall Formula, New Fog Count, Raygor Readability Estimate, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Readability Formula. Ease-of-reading was analyzed using the Flesch Reading Ease Index. RESULTS: Of 234 unique articles, there were 101 full journal (43 percent), 65 open-access journal (28 percent), and 68 patient information (29 percent) articles. When compared using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Readability Formula, full and open-access journal articles attained similar mean reading levels of 17.7 and 17.5, respectively (p = 0.475). In contrast, patient information articles had a significantly lower mean readability level of 13.9 (p < 0.001). Plastic surgeons posted 128 articles (55 percent) and non-plastic surgeon individuals posted 106 articles (45 percent). Mean readability levels between the two were 16.2 and 16.9, respectively (p < 0.001). All tweeted articles were above the sixth-grade recommended reading level. CONCLUSIONS: Readability of #PlasticSurgery articles may not be appropriate for many American adults. Consideration should be given to improving readability of articles targeted toward the general public to optimize delivery of social media messages.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess readability of articles shared on Twitter and analyze differences between them to determine whether messages and written posts are at reading levels comprehended by the general public. METHODS: Top-rated #PlasticSurgery tweets (per Twitter algorithm) in January of 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Text from tweeted links to full, open-access, and society/institutional patient information articles were extracted. Readability was analyzed using the following established tests: Coleman-Liau, Flesch-Kincaid, FORCAST Readability Formula, Fry Graph, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall Formula, New Fog Count, Raygor Readability Estimate, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Readability Formula. Ease-of-reading was analyzed using the Flesch Reading Ease Index. RESULTS: Of 234 unique articles, there were 101 full journal (43 percent), 65 open-access journal (28 percent), and 68 patient information (29 percent) articles. When compared using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Readability Formula, full and open-access journal articles attained similar mean reading levels of 17.7 and 17.5, respectively (p = 0.475). In contrast, patient information articles had a significantly lower mean readability level of 13.9 (p < 0.001). Plastic surgeons posted 128 articles (55 percent) and non-plastic surgeon individuals posted 106 articles (45 percent). Mean readability levels between the two were 16.2 and 16.9, respectively (p < 0.001). All tweeted articles were above the sixth-grade recommended reading level. CONCLUSIONS: Readability of #PlasticSurgery articles may not be appropriate for many American adults. Consideration should be given to improving readability of articles targeted toward the general public to optimize delivery of social media messages.
Authors: Joseph R Linzey; Faith Robertson; Ali S Haider; Christopher Salvatore Graffeo; Justin Z Wang; Gillian Shasby; Naif M Alotaibi; Aaron A Cohen-Gadol; James T Rutka Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 5.428