Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31763080›Full record

ArticleCureus2019

Online Search Behavior for Cancer Immunotherapy Resources and Readability Analysis: An Opportunity to Aid in Medical Decision-making.

Jie Deng, Ricky R Savjani, Percy Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jie DengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.
Ricky R SavjaniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.
Percy LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer patients are faced with increasing options for cancer care, especially with the introduction of cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Though many patients turn to online resources to supplement their decision-making, it is unknown whether online resources in cancer immunotherapy with ICIs are written at an appropriate level of readability according to national medical organizations. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of internet search behavior for cancer immunotherapy by ICIs and clinical trial availability per ClinicalTrials.gov in the United States (US) from 2004 - 2018 with subsequent quantitation of readability by four readability formulas of top 50 online resources. Internet search behavior for "cancer immunotherapy" has steadily increased since 2013 and coincides with the year of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for individual ICIs. Furthermore, internet search behavior was significantly correlated with clinical trial availability in the US (R = 0.97, p < 0.0001). None of the top 50 resources available to patients were found to be within the recommended level of sixth-grade readability or less with only one (2%) written at the middle school level, 21 (42%) at the high school level, 23 (46%) at the university level, and five (8%) at a graduate level. Population-level internet search patterns may reflect patient behavior in seeking relevant online health information and may be influenced by new options for cancer therapy, including via clinical trials. However, low readability of available online resources may impede patient comprehension and negatively affect medical decision-making.

Indexed as

cancerclinical trialshealth literacyimmune checkpointimmunotherapypatient education

Identifiers

PMID31763080
PMCPMC6834090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.