ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2007
Age-related macular degeneration: what do patients find on the internet?
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient information in Graves' disease and thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy: readability assessment of online resources.Thyroid : official journal of the American Thyroid Association · 2014Article
- eHealth as a challenge to 'expert' power: a focus group study of internet use for health information and management.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2008Article
- Quality, Readability, and Accessibility of Online Content From a Google Search of "Macular Degeneration": Critical Analysis.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the quality of information and readability of the top internet sites for age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
designAn examination of the technical information provision, quality and readability of websites found during an internet search for 'age-related macular degeneration'. Setting Six internet search engines were used to find 26 unique sites on AMD.
main outcome measuresTechnical information and quality were assessed using a simple grading system. Readability was assessed using a Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook (SMOG) rating.
resultsTwelve organizational, seven academic and seven commercial sites were identified. The average technical scores were 82.3%, 67.9% and 65.2% for each type of site, respectively (P=0.097, one way ANOVA). The average quality scores were 62.2%, 62.6%, and 49.5% for each type of site, respectively (P=0.356, one-way ANOVA). The average SMOG ratings were 16.3, 16.1, and 16.2 for each type of site, respectively (P=0.983, one-way ANOVA). Fifteen of the sites provided details of new and emerging treatments, with seven providing a detailed discussion.
conclusionsMany websites are now meeting the challenge of providing comprehensive information about AMD and its new treatments. Quality scores were disappointing, with sites needing to provide more evidence of authorship and attribution of information. The majority of sites had SMOG scores above 10, making them difficult for the average person to understand. As physicians we need to help design and direct patients to sites that provide high quality, current 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.