ArticleCartilage2021
Stem Cells in Orthopedic Web Information: An Assessment with the DISCERN Tool.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the reliability and quality of lupus nephritis educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional content analysis.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of pediatric inguinal hernia treatment information on TikTok and Bilibili.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Bilibili and TikTok as sources of information on atrophic gastritis and the quality of their content.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of femoral neck fracture educational short videos: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality and readability of patient information on robotic-assisted hip arthroplasty.Annals of joint · 2026Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Article
- A comprehensive quality and reliability assessment of SMILE (small incision lenticule extraction) laser surgery videos on youtube.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Readability and Quality of Online Patient Education Materials Concerning Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Cureus · 2024Article
- In-Office Needle Arthroscopy (IONA): may a traditionally orthopedic procedure enter the portfolio of interventional radiology?La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
- 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.