ArticleArchives of endocrinology and metabolism2021
Evaluating the reliability and readability of online information on osteoporosis.
Article in Archives of endocrinology and metabolism, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Women's Preferences and Willingness to Pay for AI Chatbots in Women's Health: Discrete Choice Experiment Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Content assessment and readability of online injury prevention resources on firearm safety: a cross-sectional analysis of hospital and national injury prevention literature.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence insights into osteoporosis: assessing ChatGPT's information quality and readability.Archives of osteoporosis · 2024Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInternet usage for obtaining health-related information is widely popular among patients. However, there are still concerns about the reliability and comprehensibility of online information. The purpose of this study is to investigate the reliability and readability of osteoporosis-related websites.
methodsOn April 2, 2020, we searched the term "osteoporosis" on Google (https://www.google.com). We evaluated the first 200 uniform resource locators (URLs) in the query results regarding typology, the
resultsOf the 151 analyzed websites, 57 (37.7%) were classified as highly reliable, and 19 (12.6%) were assigned with HONcode certification. The average FKG scores (8.81 ± 2.21) and SMOG scores (7.63 ± 1.81) were below the recommended grade, which is considered as easily readable. High reliable information was found to have higher readability scores, thereby representing the difficulty of readability. We observed a weak correlation between the increased reliability of information and decreased readability.
conclusionOsteoporosis-related content on the internet generally has low reliability. High-reliable information is available online in scientific published materials, health portals, and news. Although the readability of the overall material is acceptable, the high-reliable websites still require high literacy and comprehension skills.
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.