ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2020
Assessment of quality and readability of internet-based health information related to commonly prescribed angiotensin receptor blockers.
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2020. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of patient decision aids for hypertension.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Assessing the accuracy and readability of ChatGPT 4.0's original and simplified responses to common patient questions regarding periacetabular osteotomy.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Comparing ChatGPT and Bing, in response to the Home Blood Pressure Monitoring (HBPM) knowledge checklist.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the quality of online patient information at the intersection of complementary and alternative medicine and hypertension.Clinical hypertension · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHypertension is a global public health burden. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have proven efficacy in the management of hypertension and related complications. The Internet has become a major source of health information for patients and healthcare professionals. The study aimed to assess the quality and readability of internet-based information related to selected Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs).
methodsThe three most widely used ARBs were identified from published literature, after which internet-based patient information was identified from the first five pages of three search engines (Google, Yahoo and Bing). Quality of identified websites were assessed using the DISCERN instrument, while readability was evaluated using the SMOG instrument and the Flesch-Kincaid readability algorithm. Final ratings were then calculated as described by the instruments developers. Further, inter-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences.
resultsThe average overall DISCERN score in this study was 2.99 (SD±1.05). No website received an excellent rating, 15% were rated good, 66% as moderate and 19% as poor. The inter-class reliability was 0.804 for losartan and 0.695 for valsartan. The mean Flesch Reading Ease score for the websites was 48.87 (SD±16.12), mean Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level was 9.29 (SD±1.98) while mean SMOG value was 11.29 (SD±1.70).
conclusionOverall, patient information on the reviewed ARBs websites was found to be of moderate quality and suboptimal readability. Content providers on websites should ensure that health information is of favorable quality and easy to read by patients with varying degree of health literacy.
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.