ArticleJournal of medical Internet research
LASIK complications and the Internet: is the public being misled?
Article in Journal of medical Internet research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What do evaluation instruments tell us about the quality of complementary medicine information on the internet?Journal of medical Internet research · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLASIK (Laser in Situ Keratomileusis) is a very popular combined surgical and laser procedure, which is used to correct myopia (shortsightedness) and hyperopia (farsightedness). There is concern that the public is being misled regarding the safety of the procedure.
objectivesTo assess the quality and quantity of the information on complications on LASIK Web sites.
methodSerial analysis and evaluation of the authorship, content, and technical quality of the information on the complications of LASIK on 21 Web sites.
resultsOf the 21 LASIK Web sites visited, 17 were commercial. Of the 21 Web sites, 5 (24%) had no information on complications. Of the 16 sites that had information on complications the author of the information was clearly identified in 5 (31%), the content was only referenced in 2 (12.5%), and evidence of the information having been updated was only seen in 2 (12.5%). The quantity of information is generally minimal and the information itself is generally difficult to understand and locate.
conclusionThe quality and quantity of the information on the Web on the complications of LASIK are poor. More work is required to encourage clear, accurate, up-to-date, clearly authored, and well-referenced, balanced ophthalmic information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.