ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017
A cross sectional review of patient information available in the World Wide Web on CyberKnife: fallacies and pitfalls.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Adverse Effects of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy for Common Malignancies: What Is the Quality of Information Patients Are Finding Online?Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021Article
- Radiation Oncology Online: Quality, Strategies, and Disparities.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020Article
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
purposeThe purpose of this study is to assess the quality of videos available in YouTube on CyberKnife.
methodsThe term "CyberKnife" was input into the search window of www.youtube.com on a specific date and the first 50 videos were assessed for technical and content issues. The data was tabulated and analysed.
resultsThe search yielded 32,300 videos in 0.33 s. Among the first 50 analysed, most were professional videos, mostly on CyberKnife in general and for brain tumours. Most of the videos did not mention anything about patient selection or lesion size. The other technical details were covered by most although they seemed muffled by the animations. Many patient videos were recordings of one entire treatment, thus giving future patients an insight on what to expect. Almost half the videos projected glorified views about the treatment technique.
conclusionsThe company videos were reasonably accurate and well presented as were many institutional videos, although there was a tendency to gloss over a few points. The glorification of the treatment technique was a disturbing finding. The profound trust of the patients on the health care system is humbling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28681125What 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.