Evaluating the Accessibility of Online Resources Regarding Biceps Tenodesis.

Allen, Michael; Beluzo, Benjamin; Sethi, Shyam; Christiansen, Mitchell J; Mulcahey, Mary K · J Am Acad Orthop Surg · 2026

other · Level V

Where this comes from

Abstract

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon is a frequent source of shoulder pain. Biceps tenodesis is a common surgical intervention, and many patients seek information online. The readability and quality of online resources regarding biceps tenodesis remain unexamined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the source type, readability, and quality of online patient-facing resources regarding biceps tenodesis. Search Engine Optimization Minion extracted "People Also Ask" (PAA) questions from four terms: "biceps tenodesis," "biceps tenodesis indications," "biceps tenodesis complications," and "biceps tenodesis recovery." Searches were done in an incognito browser with data cleared. Three reviewers categorized sources and assessed credibility using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and readability using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease, and Gunning Fog Index against national patient-education standards. Four hundred queries and associated sources were analyzed. Journals were the most common (115, 28.8%), followed by academic sources (107, 26.8%) and medical practice websites (73, 18.3%). Most sources (317, 79.3%) exceeded recommended sixth-grade to eighth-grade levels: mean FKGL 9.8 (SD = 2.5), GFI 13.7 (SD = 2.7), and FKRE corresponding to grade level 12.5 (SD = 2.9). The mean JAMA score was 2.2 (SD = 0.9). Government websites were the easiest to read, FKGL M = 4.1 (SD = 0.0); GFI M = 7.8 (SD = 0.0), and moderately credible, JAMA M = 2.0 (SD = 0.0), but represented only 13 (3.3%). Journal sources had the highest credibility, JAMA M = 3.2 (SD = 0.5), yet the lowest readability, FKGL M = 11.5 (SD = 2.1); GFI M = 15.3 (SD = 2.0). The prevalence of difficult-to-read and low-quality information on biceps tenodesis highlights a gap between patient interest and the quality of accessible resources. Future efforts should explore simplifying medical content and improving the readability of online materials related to biceps tenodesis.