ArticleCurrent urology2020
'Prostate Cancer' Information on the Internet: Fact or Fiction?
Article in Current urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptability of Health Information Technology by Health Care Professionals: Where We Are Now and How We Can Fill the Gap.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Efficacy of ChatGPT as a Patient Education Tool in Prostate Cancer: Multimetric Assessment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Web-Based Educational Resources for Patients with Sickle Cell Disease: Availability and Reliability.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- Misinformation of COVID-19 on the Internet: Infodemiology Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2020Article
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
BACKGROUND/
aimsIn today's information era, patients often seek information regarding health using the internet. We assessed reliability and validity of internet information regarding 'prostate cancer'.
methodsSearch term 'prostate cancer' used on Google website (June 2017). Critical analysis was performed on first 100 hits using JAMA benchmarks, DISCERN score, Health on the Net.
results33 500 000 hits returned. Top 100 hits were critically analyzed. Ten links [duplicate links (n = 7), book reviews (n = 1), dead sites (n = 2)] were excluded, therefore 90 were analyzed. Subcategories assessed included: commercial (53.33%), university/medical center (24.44%), government (13.33%); non-governmental/ non-profit organizations (8.89%). Sub-type of information content assessed included: factual (74.44%), clinical trials (18.89%); stories (5.56%); question and answer (1.11%). Website rated as HONcode seal positive (14,44%) or seal negative (85,56%). Website content based on JAMA benchmarks: 0 benchmarks (4.44%), 1 benchmark (16.67%), 2 benchmarks (34.44%), 3 benchmarks (27.78%), 4 benchmarks (16.67%). DISCERN score rated: 'low' score (16-32) = 12 websites (13.33%), 'moderate' score (33-64 points) = 68 websites (75.56%), 'high' score (≥ 65 points) = 10 websites (11.11%).
conclusionCritical assessment of 'Prostate Cancer' information on the internet, showed that overall quality was observed to be accurate, however majority of individual websites are unreliable as a source of information by itself for patients. Doctors and patients need to be aware of this 'quality vs quantity' discrepancy when sourcing PCa information on the internet.
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.