ArticleJMIR cancer2021
Quality and Readability of Web-Based Information for Patients With Pancreatic Cysts: DISCERN and Readability Test Analysis.
Article in JMIR cancer, 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.
- Comprehensiveness, quality, and readability of non-invasive prenatal testing information on Japanese medical institution websites.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Quality and readability of online penile-cancer information: a Cross-Sectional Web Study.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Assessing the Readability and Quality of Web-Based Resources on Exercise Stress Testing: Cross-Sectional Readability and Quality Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Quality Assessment of Online Resources for Gender-affirming Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Assessment of quality and readability of web-based knowledge about gummy smile: An infodemiology study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic cysts are a complex medical problem with several treatment options. Patients use web-based health information to understand their conditions and to guide treatment choices.
objectiveThe goal of this study was to describe the quality and readability of publicly available web-based information on pancreatic cysts and to compare this information across website affiliations.
methodsA Google search for "pancreatic cysts" was performed and the first 30 websites were evaluated. Website affiliations were classified as academic, media, nonprofit, government, or not disclosed. Information describing cancer risk was recorded. The DISCERN instrument measured the quality of content regarding treatment choices. Four standardized tests were used to measure readability.
resultsTwenty-one websites were included. The majority of the websites (20/21, 95%) described the cancer risk associated with pancreatic cysts. Nearly half of the websites were written by an academic hospital or organization. The average DISCERN score for all websites was 40.4 (range 26-65.5, maximum 80). Websites received low scores due to lack of references, failure to describe the risks of treatment, or lack of details on how treatment choices affect quality of life. The average readability score was 14.74 (range 5.76-23.85, maximum 19+), indicating a college reading level. There were no significant differences across website affiliation groups.
conclusionsWeb-based information for patients with pancreatic cysts is of moderate quality and is written above the reading level of most Americans. Gastroenterological, cancer treatment organizations, and physicians should advocate for improving the available information by providing cancer risk stratification, treatment impact on quality of life, references, and better readability.
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.