ArticleThe Laryngoscope2018
Consulting Dr. Google: Quality of Online Resources About Tympanostomy Tube Placement.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Privacy policies for FDA-authorized or FDA-recognized digital therapeutics impose high digital health literacy demands: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Postoperative management of pediatric tympanostomy tubes: a Yo-IFOS consensus.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Assessing the understandability and actionability of online resources for patients undergoing hemodialysis.Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2025Article
- Carpal Tunnel Surgery: Can Patients Read, Understand, and Act on Online Educational Resources?The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2024Article
- Health Literacy in Shoulder Arthroscopy: A Quantitative Assessment of the Understandability and Readability of Online Patient Education Material.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2024Article
- A critical readability and quality analysis of internet-based patient information on neck dissections.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2023Article
- Can Patients Read, Understand, and Act on Online Resources for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery?Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
- Web-Based Patient Educational Material on Osteosarcoma: Quantitative Assessment of Readability and Understandability.JMIR cancer · 2022Article
- Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Quantitative Assessment of Online Patient Education Resources.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2022Article
- Patients' perspectives on the quality of online patient education materials: A qualitative study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Article
- Factors Affecting Engagement in Web-Based Health Care Patient Information: Narrative Review of the Literature.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- 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
- Quality and Readability of Web-Based Information for Patients With Pancreatic Cysts: DISCERN and Readability Test Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2021Article
- Consulting "Dr. YouTube": an objective evaluation of hypospadias videos on a popular video-sharing website.Journal of pediatric urology · 2020Article
- YouTube Videos as a Source of Information About Immunology for Medical Students: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical education · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Children Quality of Life after Serous Otitis Media Surgery.Journal of caring sciences · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTympanostomy tube (TT) placement is common in children; however, family-centeredness and utility of online information used for decision making and understanding is unknown. We evaluate the quality of leading Internet resources describing TT placement. STUDY
designCross-sectional descriptive design.
methodsWe performed a Google (Menlo Park, CA) search for terms related to TTs. We defined quality using scaled readability measures (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade-Level), understandability and actionability (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool), shared decision-making centrality (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services informed consent guidelines), and clinical practice guideline (CPG) compatibility. Three reviewers coded each measure. Fleiss κ interrater reliability analysis was performed.
resultsTen most frequently encountered websites were analyzed. One of 10 met national health literacy standards (mean 10th-grade level reading, median 9th, range 6-15th). All sites were understandable (mean understandability 81.9%, range 73%-92%). Most had low actionability scores (7 of 10, median 47%, mean 44.6%, range 0-80). Shared decision-making centrality was high (mean 5, range 4-6), but most did not list alternative treatment options. Although CPG compatibility was high (mean 3.4, range 1-4), many websites contained inconsistent recommendations about tube duration, follow-up, and water precautions. There was inter-rater agreement for understandability scoring (κ = 0.20; P = 0.02).
conclusionInternet resources about TT placement vary in quality pertaining to health literacy, principles of shared decision making, and consistency with practice guidelines. With growing emphasis on patient-/family-centered engagement in healthcare decision making, standardization of content and improved usability of educational materials for common surgical procedures in children such as tympanostomy tube placement should be a public health priority. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA. Laryngoscope, 128:496-501, 2018.
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.