ArticleCVIR endovascular2020
Pelvic vein embolization: an assessment of the readability and quality of online information for patients.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Social Media as a Source of Knowledge about Gene Therapy for Spinal Muscular Atrophy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comprehensive overview of the venous disorder known as pelvic congestion syndrome.Annals of medicine · 2022Review
- The Value of Web-Based Patient Education Materials on Transarterial Chemoembolization: Systematic Review.JMIR cancer · 2021Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPelvic congestion syndrome is a controversial topic. Pelvic vein embolization is a minimally invasive treatment for pelvic congestion syndrome. We aimed to assess the quality of information available on the Internet and determine how accessible information provided by the main IR societies was to patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe most commonly used term relating to pelvic vein embolization was searched across the five most-used English language search engines, with the first 25 web pages returned by each engine included for analysis. Duplicate web pages, nontext content and web pages behind paywalls were excluded. Web pages were analyzed for quality and readability using validated tools: DISCERN score, JAMA Benchmark Criteria, HONcode Certification, Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fog Index.
resultsThe most common applicable term was "Pelvic Vein Embolization". Mean DISCERN quality of information provided by websites is "fair". Flesh-Kincaid readability tests and Gunning-Fog Index demonstrated an average "college level" of reading ease. HON code certification was demonstrated in less than one third of web pages. Professional societies and scientific journals demonstrated the highest average JAMA and DISCERN scores, while for-profit organizations and healthcare providers demonstrated the lowest. Only information from 1 of 3 interventional societies was included in the first 25 search engine pages.
conclusionThe quality of information available online to patients is "fair" and outside of scientific journals the majority of web pages do not meet the JAMA benchmark criteria. These findings call for the production of high-quality and comprehensible content regarding interventional radiology, where physicians can reliably direct their patients for information.
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.