ReviewAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2023
Online patient literature related to oesophageal surgery: the need for greater readability, accreditation and higher quality.
Review in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOesophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of death worldwide but is treatable through surgery. As part of the consenting process, surgeons may guide patients towards online information leaflets to understand more about their condition and treatment. This review aimed to systematically analyse some of the current resources that can be accessed via the internet.
methodsA stringent search criteria was used to select online patient information leaflets for oesophageal cancer surgery. Leaflets were scored based on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score, DISCERN score, Health on the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification/Information Standard Certification and International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) score.
findingsOnly five sites had achieved HONcode certification. Only three sources were deemed readable using the Flesch-Kincaid scoring system and no sources reached the recommended readability using IPDAS. No source reached a maximum score with DISCERN, with the mean overall quality being 2.98. There was no significant difference between accredited and unaccredited sources. From our sample, patient information sources on oesophageal cancer surgery have a low readability.
conclusionsMore research is required to ascertain patient behaviour with regards to accessing the literature. Patients and healthcare professionals should liaise with each other to produce more readable, high-quality patient information on oesophageal cancer surgery.
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.