ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2020
A fountain of knowledge? The quality of online resources for testicular cancer patients.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- American, British, and Italian Online Information on the Health Risks Associated With Eating Meat: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Reasons behind the Delayed Diagnosis of Testicular Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Caught in the net: Characterizing how testicular cancer patients use the internet as an information source.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021Article
- Development of a 3D-printed testicular cancer model for testicular examination education.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021Article
- Analysis of the quality of meningioma education resources available on the Internet.Neuro-oncology practice · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTesticular cancer is the most common solid malignancy diagnosed in young men aged 15-29. This population is also the age group that searches most actively for health information online. This study systematically evaluates the quality of websites available to patients with testicular cancer.
methodsThe term "testicular cancer" was inputted into the search engines Google, Dogpile, and Yippy. The top 100 websites intended for patient education were compiled. A validated structural rating tool was used to evaluate the websites with respect to attribution, currency, disclosure, interactivity, readability, and content.
resultsLess than half of the websites (44) disclosed authorship. Sixty-one websites provided a last modified date, and of those, 46 were updated in the last two years. The average readability level was 11.01 using the Flesh-Kincaid grade level system. The most accurate topic was treatment, with 82 websites being completely accurate and containing all required information. The least accurate topic was prognosis, with 27 being completely accurate.
conclusionsThese results show that authorship and currency are lacking in many online testicular resources, making it difficult for patients to validate the reliability of information. The high average readability of testicular cancer websites can affect comprehension. Topics such as prognosis were incompletely covered although represent an area for which patients often seek more information. These results can be used to counsel patients on the strength and weaknesses of online testicular cancer resources.
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.