ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016
[Evaluation of the joint information platform : Information offered by German urologists].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Patient events in German urology: trend towards hybrid formats?]Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
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
backgroundThe Internet is an important source for health issues and especially professional associations should offer reliable information. Since 2001 the professional German urological associations (DGU and BDU) have hosted a joint platform to inform patients. Because a complete relaunch is currently ongoing, we evaluated the users' needs and wishes. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing a pop-up on the website www.urologenportal.de , users were invited to complete a 26-item online survey. We used a validated questionnaire for evaluation of the website. Data acquisition was performed in an anonymised manner.
resultsWe received n = 200 complete responses from February through September 2015. Respondents' median age was 57 years (range 17-89 years); 79 % were male. Users rated relevance and comprehensibility of information as very good and superior compared to layout and structure of the website. Of the users 73 % were affected themselves, but only half of them reported to have consulted a urologist. At the time of the survey, 54 % of the respondents had to make a health-related decision. The website helped 54 % of these respondents in their decision-making and 20 % reported to have changed their mind due to the information obtained. The three most frequently requested urological topics were circumcision/phimosis (33 %), prostatic enlargement (19 %), and erectile dysfunction (18 %).
conclusionsCurrently the Urologenportal as the joint information platform hosted by German urologists is perceived as a comprehensible source of relevant information. The ongoing relaunch should focus particularly on the website's structure and layout.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27312521What 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.