ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2021
Quality appraisal of educational websites about osteoporosis and bone health.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Public Reporting Systems for Evaluating Health Care Quality: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Pooled it
- Quality and content evaluation of websites with information about immune checkpoint inhibitors: An environmental scan.PloS one · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PURPOSE/
introductionBone health education publicly available through the Internet, if evidence-based and unbiased, could help patients deal with issues such as decision-making, maintaining healthy lifestyles, using medications correctly, and improving their communication with health professionals.
methodsWe performed an environmental scan and quality assessment of the currently available osteoporosis and bone health patient education information on the World Wide Web. The sample websites were identified by using three separate search tools: Google Advanced, Bing, and Ask.com . Two independent investigators collected data and appraised the quality of selected websites.
resultsWe identified 48 websites. Most websites were focused on risks factors of osteoporosis, preventive measures, screening recommendations, and topics to discuss with the physician. All websites provided adequate information describing treatment options; however, only 36% had information addressing duration of treatment, what happens when treatment stops, and the benefits and risks of various treatments. A total of 55% of the websites had their content updated to 2019 and 68% cited their sources of information to support their content. Reading levels ranged from 7.5 to 15.2 (higher than the recommended 6-grade level).
conclusionsWebsites with information about bone health and osteoporosis commonly present information about initial treatment choices, but most fail to address risk-benefit issues, and common barriers than can occur throughout the course of the disease. In addition, many websites did not update their content, did not cite their sources of information, or were written at a 9-grade level or above (rendering them unsuitable for low-literacy populations).
Indexed as
Identifiers
33566216What 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.