ArticleCureus2022
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Evaluation of Web-Based Information.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic Effect of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy on Patients with Cholecystolithiasis Complicated with Chronic Cholecystitis and Postoperative Quality of Life.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), the gold standard treatment for symptomatic gallstone disease, is the most common procedure performed by general surgeons worldwide. The internet remains to be a popular source of medical information. Our aim was to evaluate the quality and readability of information available on the web for patients undergoing LC and to compare the information provided by the National Health Service (NHS) and non-NHS websites. Methods We searched for the keywords 'laparoscopic cholecystectomy' using the three most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo and MSN) and looked at the first 50 websites only. The readability of each document was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score. We checked Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification status, whether the sites had been checked by an expert and when the information was last updated. Results Fifty-five of the possible 150 sites were analysed thus excluding repetitions (n=65), irrelevant content (n=26) or inaccessible links (n=3). Only seven of those were HONcode-certified. The mean FRE score was 46 (range 0-68, SD=16.13). There were 13 NHS sites and 42 non-NHS sites. The mean FRE score for the NHS sites was significantly better compared to the non-NHS sites [58.31 (SD=5.01) vs 42.21 (SD=16.35); p=0.001]. Fifty-four per cent (54%) of the analysed websites had been checked by a medical expert and 22% were updated within the last year. Conclusions This study highlights the poor quality and readability of information on medical websites. The information provided by NHS sites have significantly better readability compared to non-NHS sites.
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.