ArticleWorld journal of surgery2021
A Quality Assessment of the Information Accessible to Patients on the Internet About the Whipple Procedure.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality Assessment of Health Information on Social Media During a Public Health Crisis: Infodemiology Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Online resources for information on shoulder arthroplasty: an assessment of quality and readability.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2023Article
- Application of Proteomics in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Biomarker Investigations: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Recurrent pyogenic liver abscess after pancreatoduodenectomy caused by common hepatic artery injury: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Internet has become a central source of information on health-related issues. The aim of this study is to assess the quality and readability of online information present on the Whipple surgical procedure by applying recognized scoring tools.
methodsA search using the top three online search engines (Google, Bing and Yahoo) was conducted in July 2020. Websites were classified as academic, physician, commercial or unspecified. The quality of information was assessed using the JAMA and DISCERN assessment instruments and presence of a HONcode seal. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES).
resultsA total of 34 unique sources were included in our study. The average JAMA and DISCERN scores of all websites were 2.22 ± 0.48 and 47.28 ± 1.17, respectively, with a median of 1.9 (range 0-4) and 47 (range 18-71), respectively. Website classification distribution was 38% academic, 18% commercial, 9% unspecified, and 1% from physician-based websites. Physician websites had the highest JAMA score with a mean of 3 ± 0.46. Unspecified websites had the highest DISCERN score with a mean of 54.60 ± 1.09. Only 3 websites had the HONcode seal. Physician websites had a significantly higher JAMA mean score than academic websites (p-value = 0.004). Readability was difficult and is on the level of university students.
conclusionThe results of this study show a poor quality of online information present on the Whipple surgery. Academic and physician websites need to improve the quality of their websites on the procedure. More HONcode-certified websites are needed as they are the best source for information on this operation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33580299What 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.