ArticleClinical transplantation2017
Readability, content analysis, and racial/ethnic diversity of online living kidney donation information.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 2017. 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.
- Receipt and Sharing of Information to Improve Knowledge About Living Donor Kidney Transplant among Transplant Candidates with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease.Progress in transplantation (Aliso Viejo, Calif.) · 2022Article
- Low Health Literacy Is Associated With Frailty and Reduced Likelihood of Liver Transplant Listing: A Prospective Cohort Study.Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society · 2020Article
- Amplifying the Patient Voice: Key Priorities and Opportunities for Improved Transplant and Living Donor Advocacy and Outcomes During COVID-19 and Beyond.Current transplantation reports · 2020Review
- Content and Quality of Websites for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: An Environmental Scan.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2019Article
- Mood, body image, fear of kidney failure, life satisfaction, and decisional stability following living kidney donation: Findings from the KDOC study.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2018Article
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
Abstract
More than three-fourths of adults in the USA use the Internet to access health-related information. Adults exploring the possibility of living donation should have access to online content that is readable and comprehensive. We simulated a search of online information about living kidney donation and evaluated readability, topics covered, and racial/ethnic diversity of 21 websites meeting inclusion criteria (eg, hosted by a nonprofit or patient advocacy organization, English content, based in USA). Using standard readability metrics, 62% of sites were classified as "Difficult to read" and none achieved the recommended reading level of sixth grade. On average, websites covered 18.5 (62%) of 30 recommended information topics (range: 7 to 28) and only 2.1 (23%) of 9 racial/ethnic diversity items (range: 0 to 6). Overall, the most common nonprofit or patient advocacy organization websites do not meet the readability standards established by the National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association, many lack fundamental information about living kidney donation, and most are not racially/ethnically diverse. We encourage the transplant community to consider playing a more active role in improving the overall quality of online information disseminated to the general public. Further, there is a need to more critically examine the accuracy of online living donation content in future investigations.
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.