Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34425692›Full record

ArticleCartilage2021

Stem Cells in Orthopedic Web Information: An Assessment with the DISCERN Tool.

Michele Venosa, Alessio Tarantino, Irene Schettini, Roberto Padua, Maria Grazia Cifone, Vittorio Calvisi, Emilio Romanini

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cartilage, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Readability, understandability, and quality of online education materials and large language models for retrograde cricopharyngeal muscle dysfunction.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michele VenosaDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Abruzzo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9256-1758
Alessio TarantinoDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Abruzzo, Italy.
Irene SchettiniDepartment of Management and Law, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Lazio, Italy.
Roberto PaduaRomaPro, Polo Sanitario San Feliciano, Rome, Italy.
Maria Grazia CifoneDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Abruzzo, Italy.
Vittorio CalvisiDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Abruzzo, Italy.
Emilio RomaniniRomaPro, Polo Sanitario San Feliciano, Rome, Italy.
University of L'Aquila · ITEvidence (Italy) · ITUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRegenerative medicine is experiencing a strong expansion worldwide, including the treatment of some common orthopedic pathologies, with an increase in physicians adopting these technologies. This growing interest has been associated with an equally significant spread of websites dedicated to public information on this topic, often lacking scientific bases. This study aims to evaluate the quality of information on the World Wide Web about stem cells for cartilage disorders in orthopedic practice.

designOn February 19, 2021 we performed a search on Google using as keywords "cartilage stem cells," considering only the freely accessible sites in Italian, English, French, and Spanish. We selected the first 50 valid results for each language and evaluated them using the DISCERN scale.

resultsA total of 249 sites were observed, of which 49 were discarded as duplicates (8) or not relevant to the topic (41). Of the 200 sites surveyed, 47 were affiliated to a singular surgeon (23.5%), 31 to private stakeholders (15.5%), 73 to information sites (36.5%), 8 to public hospitals (4%), 13 to universities (6.5%), and 28 referred to international scientific journals (14%). Only 76 sites (38%) were rated as fair or better, while the remaining 124 (62%) were classified as poor or very poor.

conclusionsThe quality of the information promoted for stem cells in orthopedics is generally low, although a significant minority of the sites offers good quality information. A greater commitment on the part of surgeons and other stakeholders is desirable to promote information on regenerative medicine through scientific criteria supported by adequate literature.

Indexed as

OrthopedicsInternetStem CellscartilageDISCERNorthopedicspatient informationregenerative medicinestem cells

Identifiers

PMID34425692
PMCPMC8808862
OpenAlexW3196161703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.