ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Comprehensiveness, readability, and reliability of Brazilian websites available for lay people's guidance on adenotonsillectomy.
Article in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of the Readability of Web-Based Patient Education Material From Major Canadian Pediatric Associations: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2022Article
- Quality of the Italian Websites for Parental Guidance on the Indications for Tonsillectomy in Children.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdenotonsillectomy is an invasive surgical procedure, which may encourage the search for information by the lay population through online search engines. The quality of this information, however, requires an evaluation due to the wide diversity of the available content.
objectiveTo evaluate the quality, in terms of ethical principles, readability and comprehensiveness, of the most accessed websites concerning guidance to parents/guardians related to their children's recommended adenotonsillectomy.
methodsThe websites mentioned on the first 10 pages obtained after the search using "removal", "tonsils" and "adenoids" as keywords, after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were selected. All were assessed using the Flesch Readability Index and Health on the Net Code tools, in addition to an evaluation of the content by two independent evaluators. The data were described, and the inter-rater agreement was calculated by the Kappa coefficient.
results34 websites were found, of the 100 assessed ones, which met the inclusion and exclusion criteria using the Google and Yahoo! Tools. Sixteen (47%) pages were considered reasonably difficult/difficult to read according to the Flesch Readability Index. Most of them met less than half of the analyzed ethical requirements according to the Health on the Net Code, and the overall comprehensiveness average was considered insufficient.
conclusionA deficit of overall quality (comprehensiveness, readability, and ethical principles) was demonstrated for the websites available to parents or guardians about the adenotonsillectomy procedure in children.
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.