ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019
Consumer Health Search on the Web: Study of Web Page Understandability and Its Integration in Ranking Algorithms.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Negotiating uncertainties: care-seeking in an algorithmic society.Medical humanities · 2025Article
- Individual Factors That Affect Laypeople's Understanding of Definitions of Medical Jargon.Health policy and technology · 2024Article
- Assessing the Role of the Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) in Alzheimer's Disease Management: Comparative Study of Neurologist- and Artificial Intelligence-Generated Responses.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Predicting Writing Styles of Web-Based Materials for Children's Health Education Using the Selection of Semantic Features: Machine Learning Approach.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Public Engagement and Neurology: An Update.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Examining the Interaction Between Medical Information Seeking Online and Understanding: Exploratory Study.JMIR cancer · 2019Article
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
backgroundUnderstandability plays a key role in ensuring that people accessing health information are capable of gaining insights that can assist them with their health concerns and choices. The access to unclear or misleading information has been shown to negatively impact the health decisions of the general public.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate methods to estimate the understandability of health Web pages and use these to improve the retrieval of information for people seeking health advice on the Web.
methodsOur investigation considered methods to automatically estimate the understandability of health information in Web pages, and it provided a thorough evaluation of these methods using human assessments as well as an analysis of preprocessing factors affecting understandability estimations and associated pitfalls. Furthermore, lessons learned for estimating Web page understandability were applied to the construction of retrieval methods, with specific attention to retrieving information understandable by the general public.
resultsWe found that machine learning techniques were more suitable to estimate health Web page understandability than traditional readability formulae, which are often used as guidelines and benchmark by health information providers on the Web (larger difference found for Pearson correlation of .602 using gradient boosting regressor compared with .438 using Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index with the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum eHealth 2015 collection).
conclusionsThe findings reported in this paper are important for specialized search services tailored to support the general public in seeking health advice on the Web, as they document and empirically validate state-of-the-art techniques and settings for this domain application.
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.