ArticleCartilage2021
Evaluation of the Quality and Readability of Online Sources on the Diagnosis and Management of Osteochondral Lesions of the Ankle.
Article in Cartilage, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of the Most Popular Online Ankle Fracture-Related Patient Education Materials.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePatients frequently use the internet as a source to obtain health information. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of online resources on the diagnosis and treatment of ankle osteochondral lesions (OCLs).
designThree search terms ("ankle cartilage defect," "cartilage injury," "ankle cartilage damage") were entered into 3 search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing). The first 20 websites from each search was collected excluding websites intended for health care providers. The quality of the websites were evaluated using the DISCERN instrument, JAMA benchmark, and a Quality rating criteria specific to ankle OCL. The readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance.
resultsA total of 41 websites were reviewed. The mean quality ratings were poor across the assessment tools: DISCERN = 38.5 ± 9.0 (range, 23.7-56.7) out of 80; JAMA = 1.0 ± 1.1 (range, 0-3.3) out of 4; and Quality rating criteria = 11.3 ± 4.6 (range, 4-20.7) out of 24. The mean FRE and FKGL were 40.7 ± 32.0 (range, -152.3 to 60.2) and 13.5 ± 10.8 (range, 8.4-80.7), respectively; higher than the recommended reading level for patients (fifth grade).
conclusionsThe quality and readability of credible sources for ankle OCL were poor, which could lead to misinformation. This study should guide the improvement of online information on ankle OCL.
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.