ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2021
Which Resources Are Better: Sales or Scholarly? An Assessment on the Readability, Quality, and Technical Features of Online Chemical Peel Websites.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChemical peels are an exceedingly popular cosmetic treatment with a wide variety of suppliers, each with its own online health resource describing the procedure. With increasing reliance on the internet for medical information, it is crucial that these resources provide reliable information for patients to make informed decisions.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to examine popular chemical peel resources and determine if those that offered chemical peel treatments (Sales) had lower readability, quality of information, and technical features compared with those that did not (Scholarly).
methodsThe term "chemical peel" was searched in July 2020 and the top 50 websites were retrieved for analysis. Each resource's readability, quality, and technical features were measured through 8 readability formulas, the DISCERN and Health on the Net Code (HONcode), and 2 website performance monitors.
resultsThe 50 websites were analyzed with an average Fry readability score of 13th grade. Scholarly websites displayed higher readability than Sales (Flesch Reading Ease 54.4 > 47.4,
conclusionsThe average readability of chemical peel resources is too difficult, and their quality must be improved. Scholarly resources exhibited higher readability, quality, and technical features than Sales websites.
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.