ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery
Quality of information available over internet on laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery. 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.
- An investigation of the information provided to the parents of young people with mental health needs on an internet forum.Internet interventions · 2021Article
- Quality and readability of English-language Internet information for vestibular disorders.Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation · 2020Article
- Poor Readability of Online Patient Resources Regarding Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Melanoma.Cureus · 2019Article
- Accuracy and Readability of Websites on Kidney and Bladder Cancers.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
- Readability Assessment of Online Patient Education Material on Congestive Heart Failure.Advances in preventive medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of information available on the internet to patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe sources of information were obtained the keyword 'laparoscopic cholecystectomy', from internet searches using Google, Bing, Yahoo!, Ask and AOL search engines with default settings. The first 50 web links were evaluated for their accessibility, usability and reliability using the LIDA tool (validation instrument for healthcare websites by Minervation).The readability of the websites was assessed by using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Gunning Fog Index (GFI).
resultsOf the 250 links, 90 were new links. Others were repetitions, restricted access sites or inactive links. The websites had an average accessibility score of 52/63 (83.2%; range 40-62), a usability score of 39/54 (73.1%; range 23-49) and a reliability score of 14/27 (51.6%; range 5-24). Average FRES was 41.07 (4.3-86.4) and average GFI was 11.2 (0.6-86.4). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionToday, most people use the internet as a convenient source of information. With regard to health issues, the information available on the internet varies greatly in accessibility, usability and reliability. Websites appearing at the top of the search results page may not be the most appropriate sites for the target audience. Generally, the websites scored low on reliability with low scores on content production and conflict-of-interest declaration. Therefore, previously evaluated references on the World Wide Web should be given to patients and caregivers to prevent them from being exposed to commercially motivated or inaccurate information.
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.