ArticleAmerican journal of men's health2018
Readability of Prostate Cancer Information Online: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in American journal of men's health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Challenges and Opportunities for Professional Medical Publications Writers to Contribute to Plain Language Summaries (PLS) in an AI/ML Environment - A Consumer Health Informatics Systematic Review.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2023Pooled it
- Readability of Online Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) Information: Health Literacy Implications for Parents Navigating Youth Tackle Football Decisions.Journal of community health · 2026Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Development of health information materials on antimicrobial resistance with lay workers in Grahamstown/Makhanda, South Africa.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of ChatGPT as a Patient Education Tool in Prostate Cancer: Multimetric Assessment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Readability and Information Quality in Cancer Information From a Free vs Paid Chatbot.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Prostate cancer and podcasts: an analysis and assessment of the quality of information about prostate cancer available on podcasts.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Article
- Assessment of the Quality, Accountability, and Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Optic Neuritis.Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 2024Article
- Readability and topics of the German Health Web: Exploratory study and text analysis.PloS one · 2023Article
- The Impact of Popular Science Articles by Physicians on Their Performance on Online Medical Platforms.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Readability and Quality Assessment of Online Materials for Syndactyly Release.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- [Internet use after prostate cancer : Search for information and trust in disease-related information in long-term survivors].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2019Article
- Health Literacy Considerations for a New Cancer Prevention Initiative.The Gerontologist · 2019Article
- Readability of online information about HPV Immunization.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2019Article
- Readability of online patient-based information on bariatric surgery.Health promotion perspectives · 2019Article
- Advice for Health Care Professionals and Users: An Evaluation of Websites for Perinatal Anxiety.JMIR mental health · 2018Article
- Readability of Colorectal Cancer Online Information: A Brief Report.International journal of preventive medicine · 2018Article
- Readability of Cancer Clinical Trials Websites.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reading and understanding health information, both components of health literacy, can influence patient decisions related to disease management. Older adults, the population of males at greatest risk for prostate cancer, may have compromised capacity to understand and use health information. The purpose of this study was to determine the readability of prostate cancer materials on the Internet using five recommended readability tests. Using a cleared Internet browser, a search was conducted for "prostate cancer." The URLs of the first 100 websites in English were recorded to create the sample. The readability scores for each website were determined using an online, recommended service. This service generates five commonly recommended readability tests. All five tests revealed that the majority of websites had difficult readability. There were no significant differences identified between websites with .org, .gov, or .edu extension versus those with .com, .net, or other extension. It is apparent that the Internet is used often as a resource for health-related information. This study demonstrates that the large majority of information available on the Internet about prostate cancer will not be readable for many individuals.
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.