ArticleRheumatology international2016
Fifteen-year trend in information on the World Wide Web for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: evolving, but opportunities for improvement remain.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing quality and readability of online English language information to patient use and perspectives for common rheumatologic conditions.Rheumatology international · 2020Article
- Leveraging Google Trends to investigate the global public interest in rheumatoid arthritis.Rheumatology international · 2019Article
- 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the changes in the characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis information on the Internet over a 15-year period and the positioning of Web sites posted by universities, hospitals, and medical associations. We replicated the methods of a 2001 study assessing rheumatoid arthritis information on the Internet using WebCrawler. All Web sites and pages were critically assessed for relevance, scope, authorship, type of publication, and financial objectives. Differences between studies were considered significant if 95 % confidence intervals did not overlap. Additionally, we added a Google search with assessments of the quality of content of web pages and of the Web sites posted by medical institutions. There were significant differences between the present study's WebCrawler search and the 2001-referent study. There were increases in information sites (82 vs 36 %) and rheumatoid arthritis-specific discussion pages (59 vs 8 %), and decreases in advertisements (2 vs 48 %) and alternative therapies (27 vs 45 %). The quality of content of web pages is still dispersed; just 37 % were rated as good. Among the first 300 hits, 30 (10 %) were posted by medical institutions, 17 of them in the USA. Regarding readability, 7 % of these 30 web pages required 6 years, 27 % required 7-9 years, 27 % required 10-12 years, and 40 % required 12 or more years of schooling. The Internet has evolved in the last 15 years. Medical institutions are also better positioned. However, there are still areas for improvement, such as the quality of the content, leadership of medical institutions, and readability of information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27295190What 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.