ArticleBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
[What does the Internet teach the obstetric patient about labor analgesia?]
Article in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- SKIN-TO-SKIN CONTACT AND BREASTFEEDING AT CHILDBIRTH: WOMEN'S DESIRES, EXPECTATIONS, AND EXPERIENCES.Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIt has been observed a general public increased search on the Internet for health information, including Anesthesiology. The objective of this study was to evaluate the information available to the lay person in Portuguese on the internet about labor analgesia for the Brazilian population.
methodUsing the term "labor anesthesia", the first 20 sites found on Google in November 2014 were evaluated by two resident physicians and classified as medical and non-medical. Legibility and Design - accessibility, reliability and navigability-were compared using Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRESH) and Minervation validation tool for healthcare websites (LIDA) tools. The websites' content was confronted with that of the medical literature.
resultsMedical and non-medical websites were considered difficult to read according to FRESH. Regarding the design, there was no difference between groups regarding navigability, however, accessibility was considered superior in non-medical websites (p = 0.042); while reliability was higher in medical websites (p = 0.019).
conclusionsWith the increased search for health information on the Internet and concern about improving the quality of childbirth care, it is fundamental that the content available to the layperson about labor analgesia is of quality and well understood. This study demonstrated that both medical and non-medical websites are difficult to read and that non-medical websites are more accessible while the medical ones are more accurate.
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.