ArticleThe Laryngoscope2017
Quality and readability assessment of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Can We Go Online for Sports Injury Prevention? A Systematic Review of English-Language Websites with Exercise-Based Sports Injury Risk Reduction Programmes.Sports medicine - open · 2021Pooled it
- Readability analysis of AAOS and ASSH shoulder and elbow patient education online content: A 9-year follow-up study.Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013) · 2025Article
- Assessing the availability, readability, and content of online patient Education materials for cancer pain interventions: A cross-sectional analysis of major cancer center websites.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Large Language Models: Pioneering New Educational Frontiers in Childhood Myopia.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Qualitative Assessment of Quality and Readability of Patient-Directed Arabic Online Resources for Cochlear Implants in Children.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
- What Do People Want to Know About Cochlear Implants: A Google Analytic Study.The Laryngoscope · 2025Observational
- The Sugar-Coated Truth: The Quality of Diabetes Health Information on TikTok.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025Article
- Identifying and Evaluating Online Kidney Stone Pain Resources: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- A cross-sectional quantitative analysis of the readability and quality of online resources regarding thumb carpometacarpal joint replacement surgery.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2024Article
- Quality evaluation of health information about breast cancer treatment found on WeChat public accounts.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023Article
- A critical readability and quality analysis of internet-based patient information on neck dissections.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2023Article
- Quality Assessment of Hypertension Treatment-Related Information on WeChat: Cross-sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- The Quality of Online Information for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Google Study.Cureus · 2022Article
- Readability and quality assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to nasal septoplasty.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2021Article
- Readability of online COVID-19 health information: a comparison between four English speaking countries.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Needs assessment study of rare diseases education for nurses and nursing students in Poland.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the scope, quality, and health literacy demand of Internet-based anal cancer information.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019Article
- Assessment of the quality and readability of online information on autopsy for the general public: a cross-sectional analysis.BMJ open · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRecurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) is a rare disease for which a limited number of information sources for patients exist. The role of the Internet in the patient-physician relationship is increasing. More and more patients search for online health information, which should be of good quality and easy readable. The study aim was to investigate the quality and readability of English online health information about RRP. STUDY
designQuality and readability assessment of online information.
methodsRelevant information was collected using three different search engines and seven different search terms. Quality was assessed with the DISCERN instrument. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and average grade level (AGL) were determined to measure readability of the English websites.
resultsFifty-one English websites were included. The mean DISCERN score of the websites is 28.1 ± 9.7 (poor quality); the mean FRES is 41.3 ± 14.9 (difficult to read); and the mean AGL is 12.6 ± 2.3.
conclusionThe quality and readability of English websites about RRP is alarmingly poor. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA. Laryngoscope, 127:2293-2297, 2017.
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.