ArticleGlobal spine journal2022
Kyphosis-Related Information On The Internet Is the Quality, Content and Readability Sufficient for the Patients?
Article in Global spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining Artificial Intelligence Chatbots' Responses in Providing Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Information for Young Adults: Qualitative Content Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Can ChatGPT provide quality information about fever in children?Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2025Article
- GPT-4 as a Source of Patient Information for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Analysis Against Google Web Search.Global spine journal · 2024Review
- Growing Taller without Hormones? Dr. Consult Google-An Evaluation of Online Information Related to Limb Lengthening.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Can Patients Read, Understand, and Act on Online Resources for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery?Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Contents and quality of travel tips on malaria in English and Spanish travel blogs.Malaria journal · 2021Article
- 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
STUDY
designA quality-control Internet-based study using recognized quality scoring systems.
objectiveThe aim of the study is to evaluate the quality, content and readability of online information on kyphosis.
methodsThe 3 most frequently used search engines were identified and a search for "Kyphosis" was made in each. The 2 reviewers categorized their Web-sites by type, and the quality of each was assessed using well-known scoring systems, including the DISCERN score, JAMA benchmark, GQS, and the kyphosis specific content score. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) was used to assess the readability. The quality of the information was also evaluated according to the presence and absence of the HONcode.
resultsSixty unique Web sites were identified and analyzed. The distribution of the categories was 33 (55%) medical, 22 (36.7%) academic, 2 (3.3%) non-physician, 2 (3.3%) commercial and 1 (1.7%) physician. There wasn't statistically significant difference between the sources in terms of DISCERN, JAMA, GQS and KSC scores (
conclusionInformation about kyphosis on the Internet is of limited quality and low information value. The readability of the online information in our results showed a significantly higher reading level than the sixth grade level recommended by the AMA and NIH.
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.