ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2020
The Quality of Online Orthopaedic Oncology Information.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 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.
- Review
- Artificial intelligence large language model ChatGPT: is it a trustworthy and reliable source of information for sarcoma patients?Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- The Most Popular YouTube Videos About Shoulder Replacement Are of Poor Quality for Patient Education.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Brain Tumor Infodemiology: Worldwide Online Health-Seeking Behavior Using Google Trends and Wikipedia Pageviews.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
"Cancer" is one of the top three health-related Internet searches, yet research shows over 30% of patients are confused after searching for medical information. The quality and accuracy of Internet oncology literature varies widely and can affect patient perceptions or seeking of care. Purpose: This study hypothesizes that online patient resources for orthopaedic oncology are often inconsistent, inaccurate, or incomprehensible by the standard patient and examines the readability, quality, and accuracy of common orthopaedic oncology websites. Methods: Three common search terms were searched in three popular search engines. The first 25 nonsponsored websites were identified for each term; randomized to search term; and evaluated via a 25-question quality score, DISCERN treatment-based score, predetermined accuracy score, and Flesch-Kincaid reading level. Results: Forty-eight websites were included. Website quality, DISCERN score, accuracy score, and reading level were not statistically different based on search term. Quality and DISCERN scores were markedly higher from websites without commercial gain. Websites were consistently written above the recommended reading level. Discussion: Online orthopaedic oncology literature is frequently confusing and complicated. The orthopaedic surgeon should be aware that patients frequently access this information and should ensure that patients receive accurate primary source material relevant to their care.
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.