ArticleSeminars in ophthalmology2021
Assessing the Quality, Content, and Readability of Freely Available Online Information for Patients Regarding Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Article in Seminars in ophthalmology, 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.
- A Performance Evaluation of Large Language Models in Keratoconus: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Gemini, Copilot, Chatsonic, and Perplexity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Assessment of the Quality, Accountability, and Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Optic Neuritis.Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 2024Article
- Physical, Psychosocial, and Practical Burden of Patients Receiving Care for Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Canada: A Mixed-Methods Qualitative Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessment of patient education materials for age-related macular degeneration.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceOne of the top ten causes of disability in the United States is vision loss, primarily due to age-related eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration. With an aging population, the number of people affected by this condition is expected to rise. Patients increasingly turn to the internet for health-related information, but no standard exists across published websites.
objectiveTo assess the quality, content, accountability and readability of information found online for age-related macular degeneration.
designThis cross-sectional study analyzed 12 freely available medical sites with information on age-related macular degeneration and used PubMed as a gold standard for comparison. Thirty-four questions were composed to include information most relevant to patients and each website was independently evaluated by one vitreoretinal surgeon, two vitreoretinal fellows and one ophthalmology resident. Readability was analyzed using an online readability tool. The JAMA benchmarks were used to evaluate the accountability of each site.
settingFreely available online information was used in this study.
resultsThe average questionnaire score for all websites was 90.23 (SD 17.56, CI 95% ±9.55) out of 136 possible points. There was a significant difference between the content quality of the websites ( CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The freely available information online on age-related macular degeneration varies by source but is generally of low quality. The material presented is difficult to interpret and exceeds the recommended reading level for health information. Most websites reviewed did not provide sufficient information using the grading scheme we used to support the patient in making medical decisions.
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.