ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2021
Analysis of the quality of meningioma education resources available on the Internet.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive evaluation of Medtronic's Butterfly platform, a new audiovisual information material for patient education and shared decision-making in surgical thyroid disease.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeningiomas are the most common primary central nervous system tumors and patients face difficulty evaluating resources available online. The purpose of this study is to systematically evaluate the educational resources available for patients seeking meningioma information on the Internet.
methodsA total of 127 meningioma websites were identified by inputting the term "meningioma" on Google and two meta-search engines. A structured rating tool developed by our research group was applied to top 100 websites to evaluate with respect to accountability, interactivity, readability, and content quality. Responses to general and personal patient questions were evaluated for promptness, accuracy, and completeness. The frequency of various social media account types was analyzed.
resultsOf 100 websites, only 38% disclosed authorship, and 32% cited sources. Sixty-two percent did not state date of creation or modification, and 32% provided last update less than 2 years ago. Websites most often discussed the definition (99%), symptoms (97%), and treatment (96%). Prevention (8%) and prognosis (47%) were most often not covered. Only 3% of websites demonstrated recommended reading level for general population. Of 84 websites contacted, 42 responded, 32 within 1 day.
conclusionsMeningioma information is readily available online, but quality varies. Sites often lack markers for accountability, and content may be difficult to comprehend. Information on specific topics are often not available for patients. Physicians can direct meningioma patients to appropriate reliable online resources depicted in this study. Furthermore, future web developers can address the current gaps to design reliable online resources.
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.