ArticleWorld journal of urology2018
Assessment of readability, quality and popularity of online information on ureteral stents.
Article in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the readability, understandability, quality, and popularity of online materials about epilepsy in children.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Accuracy, Credibility, and Readability of Statin-Related Websites: Cross-Sectional Study.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Any Questions? Understanding the Functional Health Literacy in Patients Who Underwent Ureteroscopy.Urology · 2024Article
- Readability and reliability of online patient education materials about statins.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2023Article
- Assessment of online patient education material for eye cancers: A cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Evaluating breast cancer websites targeting Arabic speakers: empirical investigation of popularity, availability, accessibility, readability, and quality.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction.BJUI compass · 2021Article
- Impingement on the internet: evaluating the quality and readability of online subacromial impingement information.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2021Article
- [Empowerment for our patients : Innovation in everyday urology].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
- Quantitative readability analysis of websites providing information on traumatic brain injury and epilepsy: A need for clear communication.Epilepsia · 2020Article
- Differences in Perceptions of Health Information Between the Public and Health Care Professionals: Nonprobability Sampling Questionnaire Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Men's health on the web: an analysis of current resources.World journal of urology · 2019Review
- Analysis of the Patient Information Quality and Readability on Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) on the Internet.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2018Article
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
objectiveTo evaluate the quality and readability of online information on ureteral stents.
methodsGoogle.com was queried using the search terms "ureteric stent", "ureteral stent", "double J stent" and, "Kidney stent" derived from Google AdWords. Website popularity was determined using Google Rank and the Alexa tool. Website quality assessment was performed using the following criteria: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, Health on the Net (HON) criteria, and a customized DISCERN questionnaire. The customized DISCERN questionnaire was developed by combining the short validated DISCERN questionnaire with additional stent-specific items including definition, placement, complications, limitations, removal and "when to seek help". Scores related to stent items were considered as the "stent score" (SS). Readability was evaluated using five readability tests.
resultsThirty-two websites were included. The mean customized DISCERN score and "stent score" were 27.1 ± 7.1 (maximum possible score = 59) and 14.6 ± 3.8 (maximum possible score = 24), respectively. A minority of websites adequately addressed "stent removal" and "when to seek medical attention". Only two websites (6.3%) had HON certification (drugs.com, radiologyinfo.org) and only one website (3.3%) met all JAMA criteria (bradyurology.blogspot.com). Readability level was higher than the American Medical Association recommendation of sixth-grade level for more than 75% of the websites. There was no correlation between Google rank, Alexa rank, and the quality scores (P > 0.05). DISCUSSION: Among the 32 most popular websites on the topic of ureteral stents, online information was highly variable. The readability of many of the websites was far higher than standard recommendations and the online information was questionable in many cases. These findings suggest a need for improved online resources in order to better educate patients about ureteral stents and also should inform physicians that popular websites may have incomplete information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29435639What 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.