ArticleCanadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology2018
Analysis of the Patient Information Quality and Readability on Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) on the Internet.
Article in Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality assessment of online patient information on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Pooled it
- Laparoscopic myomectomy videos on WebSurg and YouTube: does peer review process make a difference?Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2024Article
- Digital Patient Education on Xanthelasma Palpebrarum: A Content Analysis.Clinics and practice · 2023Article
- Factors Affecting Engagement in Web-Based Health Care Patient Information: Narrative Review of the Literature.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
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
Abstract
Objective: Patients are increasingly using the Internet to inform themselves of health-related topics and procedures, including EGD. We analyzed the quality of information and readability of websites after a search on 3 different search engines. Methods: We used an assessment tool for website quality analysis that we developed in addition to using validated instruments for website quality, Global Quality Score (GQS) and Health on Net (HON) certification. The readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level (FKG). 30 results of each search terms 'EGD' and 'Upper Endoscopy' from Google and 15 each from Bing and Yahoo were analyzed. A total of 45 websites were included from 100 URLs after removing duplicates, video links, and journal articles. Results: Only 3 websites were found to have good quality and comprehensive and authentic information. These websites were https://www.healthline.com, https://www.uptodate.com, and https://www.emedicine.medscape.com. There were additional 13 sites with moderate quality of information. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE) score was 46.92 (range 81.6-6.5). The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade level (FKG) was 11th grade, with a range of 6th grade to 12th grade and above making them difficult to read. Conclusions: Our study shows that there are quite a few websites with moderate quality content. We recommend 3 comprehensive and authentic websites out of 45 URLs analyzed for information on Internet for EGD. In addition, the readability of the websites was consistently at a higher level than recommended by AMA at 11th grade level. In addition, we identified 3 websites with moderate quality content written at 8th grade and below readability level. We feel that gastroenterologists can help their patients better understand this procedure by directing them to these comprehensive websites.
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.