ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2018
Accuracy and Readability of Websites on Kidney and Bladder Cancers.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Web-Based Physiotherapy Resources for Bronchiectasis: Evaluation of Content, Quality, and Implementation Evidence.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026Article
- Safety, accuracy, empathy, information quality, and readability of publicly accessible LLM-based chatbots for traumatic brain injury and concussion questions: a cross-sectional comparative study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Quality Assessment of Hypertension Treatment-Related Information on WeChat: Cross-sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Assessment of the digestive system malignancy information in Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia: a longitudinal study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Liver Disease Information in Baidu Encyclopedia and Wikipedia: Longitudinal Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- The Quality of Infectious Disease Hospital Websites in Poland in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Bladder Cancer Health Literacy: Assessing Readability of Online Patient Education Materials.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Quality, Readability, and Understandability of German Booklets Addressing Melanoma Patients.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
- A Systematic Assessment of Google Search Queries and Readability of Online Gynecologic Oncology Patient Education Materials.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
- Content and Quality of Websites for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: An Environmental Scan.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2019Article
- Exploring the Most Visible German Websites on Melanoma Immunotherapy: A Web-Based Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2018Article
- Readability of Cancer Clinical Trials Websites.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the scientific accuracy and the readability level of websites on kidney and bladder cancers. The search engines Google™, Yahoo™ and Bing™ were searched independently by assessors in November 2014 using the following keywords: "bladder cancer", "kidney cancer", "patient bladder cancer", "patient kidney cancer" and "bladder and kidney cancer". Only English-language websites were selected on the bases of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Assessors independently reviewed the findings and evaluated the accuracy and quality of each website by using the DISCERN and the LIDA instruments. The readability of the websites was calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index and the Coleman-Liau Readability Index. Sixty-two websites were finally included in the study. The overall accuracy scores varied; for the DISCERN, the range was 28 to 76; out of 80 (mean ± SD, 47.1 ± 12.1; median = 46.0, interquartile range (IQR) = 19.2), and for the LIDA, the range was 52 to 125; out of 144 (mean ± SD, 101.9 ± 15.2; median, 103; IQR, 16.5). The creators of these websites were universities and research centres (n = 25, 40%), foundations and associations (n = 10, 16%), commercial and pharmaceutical companies (n = 13, 21%), charities and volunteer work (n = 4, 6%) and non-university educational bodies (n = 10, 16%). The readability scores (mean ± SD) were 11.2 ± 2.2 for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index and 11.2 ± 1.6 for the Coleman-Liau Readability Index. The accuracy and the quality of the websites on kidney and bladder cancers varied. In most websites, there were deficiencies in clarity of aims, presenting symptoms, investigations and treatment options. The readability matched grades 10-11 literacy levels-a level above the public readability level. The study highlights the needs for further improvement of the online information created for public and patients with kidney and bladder cancers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28281091What 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.