ArticleCurrent urology2015
Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy of the Prostate: Is the Information Accessible, Usable, Reliable and Readable?
Article in Current urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of readability, quality and popularity of online information on ureteral stents.World journal of urology · 2018Article
- Quality and readability of online patient information regarding sclerotherapy for venous malformations.Pediatric radiology · 2018Article
- How Readable Is BPH Treatment Information on the Internet? Assessing Barriers to Literacy in Prostate Health.American journal of men's health · 2017Article
- What Are Your Patients Reading Online About Soft-tissue Fillers? An Analysis of Internet Information.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsTo evaluate the accessibility, usability, reliability and readability of Internet information regarding transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy of the prostate. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe terms "prostate biopsy", "TRUS biopsy" and "transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate" were separately entered into the each of the top 5 most accessed Internet search engines. Websites were evaluated for accessibility, usability and reliability using the LIDA tool - a validated tool for the assessment of health related websites. Website readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level.
resultsFollowing the application of exclusion criteria, 82 unique websites were analyzed. There was a significant difference in scores depending on authorship categories (p ≤ 0.001), with health related charity websites scoring highest (mean 122.29 ± 13.98) and non-academic affiliated institution websites scoring lowest (mean 87 ± 19.76). The presence of advertisements on a website was associated with a lower mean overall LIDA tool score (p = 0.024). Only a single website adhered to the National Institutes for Health recommendations on readability.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates variability in the quality of information available to Internet users regarding TRUS biopsies. Collaboration of website design and clinical acumen are necessary to develop appropriate websites for patient benefit.
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.