ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2014
The quality of snoring treatment information on the internet.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2014. 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.
- The Content and Quality of Health Information on the Internet for Patients and Families on Adult Kidney Cancer.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2017Article
- Quality and readability assessment of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.The Laryngoscope · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the quality of information available on the World Wide Web regarding the treatment of snoring. The main data source was from internet searches using the three most popular search engines using the keywords "snoring treatment". First page websites were evaluated using the DISCERN instrument (assessing reliability and information given about treatment choices). Of the 135 websites identified, 16 unique websites were evaluated in the study (the remaining being adverts or repetitions). The websites had an average overall score of 2.37 out of 5 (range 1.19-4) and 37.5 % of the websites evaluated scored less than 2 out of 5 overall, suggesting very poor quality information. Highly ranked websites on popular search engines may not contain the most reliable information. Overall the information on the internet regarding the treatment of snoring is poor and patients should be encouraged to discuss their findings with a medical professional.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24972541What 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.