ReviewWorld journal of urology2019
Men's health on the web: an analysis of current resources.
Review in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Empowerment for our patients : Innovation in everyday urology].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
- The Sentiment Analysis of Tweets as a New Tool to Measure Public Perception of Male Erectile and Ejaculatory Dysfunctions.Sexual medicine · 2019Article
- Topic issue: men's health in 2019.World journal of urology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMen's health research covers a broad range of topics. Men and women face different barriers to health, with men almost universally having a lower life expectancy than women. Access to high-quality information on men's health topics is potentially an important part of engaging men with medical services. We aim to assess the quality of men's health resources available on the internet across 4 developed countries using a tier-based rating system as well as the World Health Organisation Health on the Net (HON) standards.
methodsThe Google search engine imbedded with the Health on the Net toolbar was used to assess 357 websites across Australia, Canada, America and United Kingdom using the search term 'men's health'. The websites were further subdivided into 3 tiers by 2 independent investigators, with tier 1 websites defined as government or health organisation sponsored, tier 2 websites defined as being sponsored by health services such as private clinics and insurance providers, and tier 3 websites being websites that did not meet criteria for the first 2 tiers.
resultsOverall, 28% of websites were rated as tier 1, 26% as tier 2 and 46% as tier 3. The HONcode accreditation was overall 39% of tier 1 websites. The majority of websites reviewed were in the tier 3 category, and 35% of overall websites being non-health or non-medically related. DISCUSSION: The lack of 'relevant' and HONcode-accredited websites relating to men's health should be appreciated by health care professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30756151What 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.