ArticleRheumatology international2020
Comparing quality and readability of online English language information to patient use and perspectives for common rheumatologic conditions.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Quality and readability of online information on plantar fasciitis and calcaneal spur.Rheumatology international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluate quality and readability of online information for common rheumatologic diseases. Compare rheumatology patients' internet use and preferences to an objective evaluation of internet quality and readability. Five common rheumatologic diseases were searched on the web browser Google using English language. The first twenty websites from each of the five searches were evaluated for internet quality (e.g. content that is current, balanced, has specific aims, and is appropriately cited) using the DISCERN criteria and readability using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). The results were contrasted with a survey sent to patients with rheumatic disease. The survey measured patient likeliness to use and trust identified websites. Internet quality was similar (good) for all five diseases searched while readability was poor. There was an inverse relationship between internet quality and readability. Internet quality significantly differed across website sponsor, and readability significantly differed across disease and website sponsor. Common medical website sponsors with the highest combined quality and readability scores were Mayo Clinic and Web MD. Eight hundred and fifty-eight patients were sent a survey, of which 147 (17%) completed. Patients indicated they were most likely to use and trust a Mayo Clinic-sponsored website when compared to other common sponsored websites from our evaluation, followed by the American College of Rheumatology. Although we found good-quality information, all websites evaluated had readability levels above the recommended sixth-grade reading level. The website sponsor with the highest combined readability and quality score was also the most used and trusted by patients. Patients would like more information about credible and trusted websites from their medical providers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32772132What 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.