ArticleBJUI compass2021
Quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction.
Article in BJUI compass, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social Media and Men's Health: Separating Science from Speculation in Andrology.Basic and clinical andrology · 2025Review
- Bridging the gap: the role of large language model refinement in readability in urology research.BJU international · 2025Article
- Professionalism vs. engagement: quality of SSc information on WeChat.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Quality and benefits of the erectile dysfunction information on websites, social-media, and applications.International journal of impotence research · 2024Review
- Analysis of the quality of information provided by "Dr. YouTube™" on premature ejaculation.Industrial psychiatry journal · 2024Article
- Online Provision ofCancers · 2024Article
- Accuracy of prostate cancer screening recommendations for high-risk populations on YouTube and TikTok.BJUI compass · 2023Article
- Comprehensiveness of online sources for patient education on hereditary hearing impairment.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction.BJUI compass · 2021Article
- Article
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
Objectives: To investigate the quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction using a Google search. Materials and methods: The results of a Google search for "erectile dysfunction treatment" were reviewed. Webpages that contained written information on erectile dysfunction except those containing scientific publications and paywall protected webpages were included in further analysis. Typographic and treatment information were recorded. Readability was assessed using the Fleisch-Kincaid grade level, the Gunning-Fog index, the Coleman-Liau index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Website quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and presence of Health on the net (HON) code certification. Website typography, discussed treatment types, readability scores, and quality measures were reported. Parametric and nonparametric statistical tests were used to compare the data as appropriate dependent on the normality of data. Results: Eighty-one webpages were included. Urologists and hospitals were the most common producers with 15 (18%) each. Seventy-four (91%) webpages contained specific information on treatment for erectile dysfunction and 15 (19%) contained advertisements. Seventeen (21%) webpages were HON code certified. The median DISCERN score was 35 (IQR 26.5-44) out of 80. The mean combined readability score was 12.32 (SD 1.91). The median JAMA benchmark score was 1 (IQR 1-2) out of 4. Google rank had a small negative correlation with DISCERN score ( Conclusions: The quality of online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction is generally poor. However, easy to identify markers of quality like HON code certification, or meeting JAMA benchmark criterion for attribution and currency may help patients to navigate to better quality online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction. Webpages are written at senior high school level, above any recommendations for patient medical information. Health professionals should use validated instruments to assess the quality of online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction prior to publication to improve their utility for patients.
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.