ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2018
Quality Information about Uterine Fibroids on the Internet.
Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere are no published studies analyzing the quality of the information for lay women on the Internet regarding uterine fibroids. The accuracy of the provided material is also unknown. Thus, we have performed a cross-sectional study with 381 websites in the English and Brazilian Portuguese languages between May and December 2017.
methodsTwo investigators performed the analysis, and the Cohen kappa coefficient was calculated to analyze the agreement between them. Search terms (
resultsGoogle was the most used search engine, and uterine fibroid was the search term that generated most of the analyzed material. The median score for accuracy in all websites was 5 out of 10, and the median score of the DISCERN instrument was 38 out of 80. The top-scoring sites in the English language were derived from scientific organizations and federal governments, and they regarded the DISCERN score (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG], the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]) and the accuracy criteria (NIH, and FDA). On the other hand, in the Brazilian Portuguese language, the highest scores in both instruments were from magazines or physician's blogs. The Cronbach α test showed a higher correlation (0.77-0.79) between the sites and DISCERN; however, the item-test correlation varied from 0.39 to 0.56.
conclusionThere is a need to improve the quality of the information regarding uterine fibroids for lay women.
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.