SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2017
A systematic review of online resources to support patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines 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
- Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Both English- and Spanish-Language Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Online Patient Education Materials Are Written at Higher-Than-Recommended Reading Levels.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Free Online Decision Tools to Support Parents Making Decisions About Their Children's Chronic Health Condition: An Environmental Scan.Academic pediatrics · 2023Review
- The Value of Web-Based Patient Education Materials on Transarterial Chemoembolization: Systematic Review.JMIR cancer · 2021Review
- Quality and Readability of Web-Based Information for Patients With Pancreatic Cysts: DISCERN and Readability Test Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2021Article
- Cannabis use in pediatric cancer patients: what are they reading? A review of the online literature.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Review
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe internet is becoming an increasingly popular resource to support patient decision-making outside of the clinical encounter. The quality of online health information is variable and largely unregulated. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of online resources to support patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery.
methodsThis systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42017058319). Searches were performed on Google and specialist decision aid repositories using a pre-defined search strategy. Sources were analysed according to three measures: (1) their readability using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score, (2) DISCERN score and (3) International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) minimum standards criteria score (IPDASi, v4.0).
resultsOverall, 95 sources were from Google and the specialist decision aid repositories. There were 53 duplicates removed, and 18 sources did not meet the pre-defined eligibility criteria, leaving 24 sources included in the full-text analysis. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score was higher than recommended for patient education materials (48.8 ± 15.6, range 25.2-85.3). Overall quality of sources supporting patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery was poor (median DISCERN score 1/5 ± 1.18, range 1-5). No sources met minimum decision-making standards (median IPDASi score 5/12 ± 2.01, range 1-8).
conclusionsCurrently, easily accessible online health information to support patient decision-making for rectal surgery is of poor quality, difficult to read and does not support shared decision-making. It is recommended that professional bodies and medical professionals seek to develop decision aids to support decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery.
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.