ArticleKorean journal of urology2011
Analysis of content legibility for smartphones of websites of the korean urological association and other urological societies in Korea.
Article in Korean journal of urology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An evidence-based evaluation of health information on erectile dysfunction from 10 nationwide daily newspapers in Korea.Korean journal of urology · 2013Article
- How Twitter Is Studied in the Medical Professions: A Classification of Twitter Papers Indexed in PubMed.Medicine 2.0Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe performed an analysis of the smartphone legibility of the websites of the Korean Urological Association (KUA) and other urological societies. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was conducted on the websites of the KUA and nine other urological societies. Each website was accessed via iPhone Safari and Android Chrome, respectively, to evaluate the establishment and readability of the mobile web pages. The provision of Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds by the websites and whether the websites had Twitter and Facebook accounts were evaluated. In addition, a validation test on the web standards was performed by using the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C®) Markup Validation Service, and subsequently the numbers of errors and warnings that occurred were analyzed.
resultsWhen accessed via Safari, two websites were legible, four were somewhat legible, and four were somewhat illegible. When accessed via Chrome, two websites were legible, six were somewhat legible, and two were somewhat illegible. One website provided an RSS feed and two websites managed members via separate Twitter accounts. No website supported mobile web pages. The result of the W3C® Markup Validation test on 10 websites showed a mean error rate of 221.6 (range, 13-1,477) and a mean warning rate of 127.13 (range, 0-655).
conclusionsThe smartphone legibility level of the websites of urological societies was relatively low. Improved smartphone legibility and web standard compliance of the websites of urological societies are required to keep up with the popularity of smartphones.
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.