ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020
Quality of consumer-oriented websites containing information about the second trimester ultrasound examination during pregnancy.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- What's out there for parents? A systematic review of online information about prenatal microarray and exome sequencing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Pooled it
- Quality and readability of online information on idiopathic subglottic stenosis.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProviding information about prenatal tests is a clinical challenge and the public frequently accesses the Web to read pregnancy-related information. The overarching aim of this study was to investigate the quality of consumer-oriented websites addressing obstetric ultrasound examination in the second trimester of pregnancy.
methodsSwedish websites were identified with Google, using 20 search strings and screening 400 hits (n = 71 included websites). Reliability and information about the examination were assessed with the DISCERN instrument, completeness was assessed according to national guidelines, and readability analyzed with the Readability Index. Popularity was determined with the ALEXA tool and search rank was determined according to Google hit lists.
resultsThe mean total DISCERN score was 29.7/80 (SD 11.4), with > 50% having low quality for 15 of the 16 questions. The mean completeness score was 6.8/24 (SD 4.5). The Readability Index ranged between 22 and 63, with a mean of 42.7 (SD 6.8), indicating difficult readability. Weak and non-significant correlations were observed between ALEXA/search rank and the investigated quality variables, except for search rank and reliability.
conclusionsThe quality of consumer-oriented websites addressing the second trimester ultrasound examination is low. Health professionals need to discuss this with expectant parents considering undergoing the examination. There is a need for efforts that aim to improve the poor quality of online sources in the field of prenatal examinations.
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.