Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35639042›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2023

Evaluation of the quality of information online for arthroscopic Bankart repair.

M Shazil Jamal, E T Hurley, M S Davey, H Asad, M Gaafar, H Mullett

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The role of generative artificial intelligence in deciding fusion treatment of lumbar degeneration: a comparative analysis and narrative review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

M Shazil JamalSports Surgery Clinic, Dublin, Ireland.
E T HurleySports Surgery Clinic, Dublin, Ireland.
M S DaveySports Surgery Clinic, Dublin, Ireland.
H AsadRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland.
M GaafarSports Surgery Clinic, Dublin, Ireland.
H MullettSports Surgery Clinic, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of information online for patients searching terms related to arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

methodsGoogle, Yahoo and Bing were searched with terms related to ABR. The quality of information was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark criteria, DISCERN Score, and the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease & Grade Level. The presence of the HONcode marker was noted. Additionally, we used a scoring system specific to content relating to the ABR (AB score), a 1-20 Likert scale. Websites were also categorised according to the source: academic institution, physician, allied healthcare, commercial, media or social media. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism.

resultsNinety-six unique websites were evaluated, with the most common website category being physician websites (52) and academic institution websites (24). There were nine websites with the HONcode marker. The average JAMA Benchmark criteria score was 1.95 (1-4), the average DISCERN score was 48.8 (20-78), with an average Flesch-Kincaid reading ease of 50.9 (11-96) and grade level of 8 (1-18). The average AB score was 5.9 (0-18), and there was a strong correlation with a higher DISCERN score (

conclusionThere was wide variability in the quality and readability online of the information on ABR, and the AB scoring system was shown to correlate strongly with increased quality.

Indexed as

ArthroscopyInternetOrthopedic ProceduresShoulderComprehensionHumansUnited StatesArthroscopic Bankart repairHealth literacyOrthopaedic surgeryQualityReadability

Identifiers

PMID35639042
PMCPMC10149282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.