Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23838496›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2013

Quality analysis of patient information on surgical treatment of haemorrhoids on the internet.

T M Yeung, N D D'Souza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Accuracy and Readability of Websites on Kidney and Bladder Cancers.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Treatment of hemorrhoids: A coloproctologist's view.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

T M YeungOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK. trevor.yeung@imm.ox.ac.uk
N D D'Souza

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHaemorrhoids are the most common benign condition seen by colorectal surgeons. At clinic appointments, advice given about lifestyle modification or surgical interventions may not be understood fully by patients. Patients may use the internet for further research into their condition. However, the quality of such information has not been investigated before. This study assessed the quality of patient information on surgical treatment of haemorrhoids on the internet.

methodsFour searches were carried out using the search terms 'surgery for haemorrhoids' and 'surgery for piles' on two search engines (Google and Yahoo). The first 50 results for each search were assessed. Sites were evaluated using the DISCERN instrument.

resultsIn total, 200 websites were assessed, of which 144 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, 63 (44%) were sponsored by herbal remedies for haemorrhoids. Eighty-nine (62%) mentioned conservative treatment options but eleven (8%) did not include surgery in their treatment options. Only 38 sites (27%) mentioned recurrence of haemorrhoids following surgery and 28 sites (20%) did not list any complications. Overall, 19 websites (14%) were judged as being of high quality, 66 (45%) as moderate quality and 58 (40%) as low quality.

conclusionsThe quality of information on the internet is highly variable and a significant proportion of websites assessed are poor. The majority of websites are sponsored by private companies selling alternative treatments for haemorrhoids. Clinicians should be prepared to advise their patients which websites can provide high-quality information on the surgical treatment of haemorrhoids.

Indexed as

HemorrhoidectomyHemorrhoidsHumansInternetPatient Education as TopicPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of Health CareSearch Engine

Identifiers

PMID23838496
PMCPMC4165136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.