ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021
Assessing the Accuracy, Quality, and Readability of Patient Accessible Online Resources Regarding Ocular Gene Therapy and Voretigene Neparvovec.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy, quality, and readability of online information regarding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ocular gene therapy voretigene neparvovec (Luxturna, Spark Therapeutics, Philadelphia, PA, USA).
methodsTen online resources about voretigene neparvovec were assessed in this cross-sectional study. A novel 25-question assessment was created to evaluate the information most relevant to patients. Each article was assessed by independent graders using the assessment and the DISCERN instrument. An online readability tool, Readable, was used to assess readability. Accountability was evaluated using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks.
resultsThe average questionnaire score for all the articles was 33.93 (SD 11.21, CI 95% ±6.95) out of 100 possible points with significant variation in the content accuracy and quality between the articles (P=0.017). EyeWiki achieved the highest score and MedicineNet the lowest. The mean reading grade for all articles was 12.88 (SD 1.93, CI 95% ±1.19) with significant variation between articles (P=0.001). Wikipedia was the most readable, and the FDA website was the least. None of the articles achieved all four JAMA benchmarks, and only one of the ten articles, EyeWiki, achieved three of the four JAMA benchmarks.
conclusionThe information available online regarding this FDA-approved ocular gene therapy is generally of low quality, above the average reading level of the general population, and varies significantly between sources. The articles provide incomplete information that is not entirely accurate or easy to read, and as a result, the material would not support patients adequately in their medical decisions and questions about this new therapeutic option.
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.