Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29353371›Full record

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

A Systematic Assessment of Google Search Queries and Readability of Online Gynecologic Oncology Patient Education Materials.

Alexandra Martin, J Ryan Stewart, Jeremy Gaskins, Erin Medlin

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Assessment of readability of gynecologic cancer clinical trials literature at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Alexandra MartinDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 529 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. almart15@louisville.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5502-5414
J Ryan StewartDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 529 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Jeremy GaskinsDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville School of Public Health and Information Sciences, Louisville, KY, USA.
Erin MedlinDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 529 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Internet is a major source of health information for gynecologic cancer patients. In this study, we systematically explore common Google search terms related to gynecologic cancer and calculate readability of top resulting websites. We used Google AdWords Keyword Planner to generate a list of commonly searched keywords related to gynecologic oncology, which were sorted into five groups (cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer) using five patient education websites from sgo.org . Each keyword was Google searched to create a list of top websites. The Python programming language (version 3.5.1) was used to describe frequencies of keywords, top-level domains (TLDs), domains, and readability of top websites using four validated formulae. Of the estimated 1,846,950 monthly searches resulting in 62,227 websites, the most common was cancer.org . The most common TLD was *.com. Most websites were above the eighth-grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institute of Health (NIH). The SMOG Index was the most reliable formula. The mean grade level readability for all sites using SMOG was 9.4 ± 2.3, with 23.9% of sites falling at or below the eighth-grade reading level. The first ten results for each Google keyword were easiest to read with results beyond the first page of Google being consistently more difficult. Keywords related to gynecologic malignancies are Google-searched frequently. Most websites are difficult to read without a high school education. This knowledge may help gynecologic oncology providers adequately meet the needs of their patients.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyComprehensionConsumer Health InformationEducation, DistanceFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansInternetMedical OncologyPatient Education as TopicSearch EngineUnited StatesGoogle search termsGynecologic cancersOnline patient education materialsReadabilityWebsites

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.