Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32513968›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2021

Evidence-based analysis of online consumer information about prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Mitchell M Huang, Jared S Winoker, Brian R Matlaga, Mohamad E Allaf, Kevin Koo

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mitchell M HuangThe James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. mitchmhuang@jhmi.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5993-6415
Jared S WinokerThe James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Brian R MatlagaThe James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Mohamad E AllafThe James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Kevin KooThe James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0627-5518
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical guidelines have conflicting recommendations on the role of prostate artery embolization (PAE), a novel interventional radiology technique used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In the absence of consensus among clinicians, patients may seek information online, where consumer-targeted content has proliferated in recent years. Our objective was to assess the content and quality of online information about prostate artery embolization (PAE).

methodsWe evaluated patient interest and exposure to PAE by searching Google Trends for PAE and searching Google for BPH and treatment-related terms. To assess online content about PAE safety and efficacy, we queried Google for patient-oriented websites and YouTube for consumer videos, assessing quality using the validated DISCERN instrument and performing an evidence-based content analysis of how indications, risks, and benefits of PAE were presented.

resultsWorldwide searches for PAE peaked in 2019; PAE was mentioned in 15 (26%) of the 57 general BPH-related websites. From our PAE-specific searches, we identified 50 websites and 31 videos. Academic hospitals were the most common sponsor of both PAE-related websites (16, 32%) and videos (15, 48%). Among sources offering PAE to patients, only 15% of websites and 11% of videos explicitly did so as part of a clinical trial. The average DISCERN rating of quality of content was 3.0 out of 5 for websites and 2.0 out of 5 for videos (p < 0.001). Over a quarter of websites and more than half of videos contained potential misinformation, inaccuracies, or non-evidence-based claims about PAE (p = 0.02).

conclusionsOnline consumer information about PAE is of low to moderate quality, with a high frequency of non-evidence-based claims. In the absence of guideline consensus about the role of PAE, clinicians should offer shared decision making and evidence-based counseling about the risks and benefits of PAE.

Indexed as

InternetAgedArteriesEmbolization, TherapeuticFollow-Up StudiesHumansInjections, Intra-ArterialMaleProstateProstatic HyperplasiaRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32513968
OpenAlexW3033948872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.