Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29313299›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2019

Websites on Bladder Cancer: an Appropriate Source of Patient Information?

Johannes Salem, Pia Paffenholz, Christian Bolenz, Melanie von Brandenstein, Angelika Cebulla, Axel Haferkamp, Timur Kuru, Cheryl T Lee, David Pfister, Igor Tsaur and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A web-based knowledge database to provide evidence-based information to cancer patients: Utilization within the PIKKO study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  2. [Digitalization in urology-challenge and opportunity].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Johannes SalemDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. johannes.salem@uk-koeln.de.ORCID 0000-0002-0528-9291
Pia PaffenholzDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Christian BolenzDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Melanie von BrandensteinDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Angelika CebullaDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Axel HaferkampDepartment of Urology, University Medicine, Mainz, Germany.
Timur KuruDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Cheryl T LeeDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
David PfisterDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Igor TsaurDepartment of Urology, University Medicine, Mainz, Germany.
Hendrik BorgmannDepartment of Urology, University Medicine, Mainz, Germany.
Axel HeidenreichDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing number of patients search for health information online. An early investigation of websites about bladder cancer (BCa) revealed mostly incomplete and particularly inaccurate information. We analyzed the quality, readability, and popularity of the most frequented websites on BCa. An Internet search on www.google.com was performed for the term "bladder cancer." After selecting the most frequented websites for patient information, HONcode quality certification, Alexa popularity rank, and readability scores (according to US grade levels) were investigated. A 36-point checklist was used to assess the content according to the EAU guidelines on BCa, which was categorized into seven topics. The popularity of the 49 websites analyzed was average, with a median Alexa popularity rank of 41,698 (interquartile range [IQR] 7-4,671,246). The readability was rated difficult with 11 years of school education needed to understand the information. Thirteen (27%) websites were HONcode certified. Out of 343 topics (seven EAU guideline topics each on 49 websites), 79% were mentioned on the websites. Of these, 10% contained incorrect information, mostly outdated or biased, and 34% contained incomplete information. Publically provided websites mentioned more topics per website (median [IQR] 7 [5.5-7] vs. 5.5 [3.3-7]; p = 0.022) and showed less incorrect information (median [IQR] 0 [0-1] vs. 1 [0-1]; p = 0.039) than physician-provided websites. Our study revealed mostly correct but partially incomplete information on BCa websites for patients. Physicians and public organizations should strive to keep their website information up-to-date and unbiased to optimize patients' health literacy.

Indexed as

ComprehensionConsumer Health InformationHealth LiteracyInternetUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsHumansBladder cancerGuidelinesHealth literacyInternet informationNew mediaPatient educationPatient informationWebsites

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.