SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2021
A Systematic Review of Online Patient Resources to Support Shared Decision Making for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors of decisional conflict among people living with chronic pain identified through a pan-Canadian survey.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Animation Supported Consent Before Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.World journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Assessment of freely available online videos of cardiac electrophysiological procedures from a shared decision-making perspective.Cardiovascular digital health journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRCS Eng, the Royal College of Surgeons of England, has published much information with regard to the consenting process. A majority of patients seek health information through online resources as well as discussing with the care givers. Therefore, it is necessary that online material is both of high quality and reliable for patients. We aimed to evaluate the quality and standard of the online patient information on laparoscopic cholecystectomy to help in the consenting process.
methodsA search was carried out as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Sources were assessed using five validated scoring tools: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (readability), DISCERN and IPDAS scores (quality of content) and HONcode and the Information Standard Certification (standards of accreditation).
resultsThe average readability of all websites was higher than recommended for patient literature. Less than half of the sources had received HONcode or Information Standard accreditation. On grading of quality and content, across validated scoring tools, no source achieved the minimum recommended level.
conclusionOnline patient information related to laparoscopic cholecystectomy is of poor quality. We recommend a multidisciplinary approach to participate in publishing more readable online resources of a higher standard to help patients and clinicians in consent and shared decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34232356What 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.