ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2022
Quality of Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) Resources Available on the Internet.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of an online tool about the expected course of disease for glioblastoma patients-A qualitative study.Neuro-oncology practice · 2022Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) carries a poor prognosis, and patients often have trouble accessing high-quality resources. The purpose of this study is to systematically evaluate the information available to GBM patients on the Internet. An Internet search using the term "Glioblastoma Multiforme" was performed using three different search engines: Google, Yippy, and Dogpile. A structured rating tool, validated and developed by our research group, was applied to evaluate the top 100 websites with respect to accuracy, coverage, readability, currency, structure, attribution, and interactivity. Among the 100 websites evaluated, definition and treatment were the most accurately written sections (98% and 78% of websites). Etiology/risk factors and diagnosis were the least accurately written sections (40% and 52% of websites). Half of the websites did not cover etiology/risk factors, and 47% did not cover diagnosis. Only 21% of websites provided complete authorship information, and almost half of websites (46%) were affiliated with commercial websites (.com). Sixty three percent of websites were at a post-secondary reading level. The majority of online GBM websites contains accurate but incomplete information. Many websites do not provide authorship information, last modification dates, and reference materials. Readability was generally inappropriate for GBM patients. This research can be useful for clinicians to guide GBM patients to quality online resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33770375What 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.