ArticleCancers2021
Accuracy and Reliability of Internet Resources for Information on Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance-What Information Is out There for Our Patients?
Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Web-Based Information on Spinal Cord Stimulation: Qualitative Assessment of Publicly Accessible Online Resources.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Quality of Online Information on Multiple Myeloma Available for Laypersons.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline information gathering can increase patients' engagement in decision-making. The quality of online resources available for monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) was evaluated.
methods900 websites from Google, Bing, Yahoo, and 150 YouTube videos were assessed.
resultsThe websites did not differ regarding their search rank or between the search engines. The median time since last update was 24 months. The 86 unique websites showed a medium to poor general quality (JAMA score 3/4, only 8.1% websites with a valid HON certificate). The patient- (user-) focused quality was poor (sum DISCERN score 27/80 points). The reading level was difficult (11th US school grade). The content level was very low (13/50 points). 12.8% of websites contained misleading/wrong facts. Websites provided by scientific/governmental organizations had a higher content level. For the 61 unique videos, the median time since upload was 34 months. The videos showed a medium general quality (HON Foundation score). The patient- (user-) focused quality was poor (sum DISCERN score 24 points). The content level was very low (6 points).
conclusionMGUS-relevant online sources showed a low quality that was provided on a high reading level. Incorporation of quality indices and regular review of online content is warranted.
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.