ArticleSpinal cord2016
Quality of websites with patient information about spinal cord injury in Spanish.
Article in Spinal cord, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- An assessment of the quality and readability level of online content on urinary tract infection treatment in Spanish and English.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- A comprehensive analysis of the readability of consent forms for blood transfusion in Spain.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2023Article
- Availability and Readability of Spinal Cord Injury Online Information Materials for Spanish Speaking Population in Neurosurgical Academic Programs: A Nationwide Study.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- How good is online information on fibromyalgia? An analysis of quality and readability of websites on fibromyalgia in Spanish.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Computer and internet use among people with long-standing spinal cord injury: a cross-sectional survey in the Netherlands.Spinal cord · 2019Article
- Public knowledge of low vision and blindness, and readability of on-topic online information.Journal of optometryArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designDescriptive, cross-sectional analysis of websites with information on spinal cord injury (SCI) in Spanish.
objectiveTo assess the quality, readability and presence of quality labels on web pages with information about SCI in Spanish.
settingThe Internet.
methodsAn Internet search was conducted on Google with the keywords 'lesión medular' (spinal cord injury), 'paraplejia' (paraplegia) and 'tetraplejia' (tetraplegia). The first 50 results of each search were included. The quality of websites was assessed with the LIDA tool while the readability was assessed with the Flesch-Szigriszt index and the INFLESZ scale. We also checked the presence of any quality label.
resultsAfter excluding duplicated and irrelevant results, 33 websites were analysed. Only four of them had a quality label. The mean score of the LIDA tool was 61.12% (medium quality), and the worst results were those referring to the reliability of the information. The readability of the web pages was somewhat difficult, with a mean of 48.22 in the Flesch-Szigriszt index. Only eight of the websites showed normal readability. We observed no differences in either the quality or the readability of the websites according to their origin or the presence of quality labels.
conclusionsThe websites analysed present a medium quality. Mainly, they should improve the reliability of their contents and their readability, including more quality labels. For SCI information in Spanish to be understandable and to provide valuable content, websites analysed in our study need to improve the quality parameters.
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.