ArticleCureus2023
Online Health Information for Penile Prosthesis Implants Lacks Quality and Is Unreadable to the Average US Patient.
Article in Cureus, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline health information (OHI) has become widely accessible and affects patient decisions regarding their healthcare. The purpose of this study was to assess the readability, quality, and accuracy of information available to patients online about penile prosthesis implants (PPIs).
methodsWe performed a Google search using the keywords "penile implant" and "penile prosthesis." The first 30 search results for both terms were analyzed, and advertisements, news articles, duplicates, and videos were excluded. Websites were categorized as institutional, commercial, and personal/patient support. Readability of each website was determined using the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) readability formula within the readable tool. Quality was measured by Health On the Net (HON) certification status and the DISCERN scoring method. For website accuracy, a score of 1-4 (1=0-25%, 2=25-50%, 3=50-75%, and 4=75-100%) was assigned.
resultsForty-four websites met the criteria (23 institutional, 12 commercial, and 9 personal/patient support). The mean total FKGL score was 9.55. No statistical difference was detected between mean FKGL for each website category (p=0.69). Only eight websites (18%) scored ≤8th-grade reading level (average US adult level), while 36 (82%) were >8th-grade level. Mean total DISCERN sum score was 39.74/75, with no statistical difference in mean DISCERN score between website types (p=0.08). Over half (55%) of the websites were defined as "very poor" or "poor" quality by DISCERN scoring. Mean total overall quality rating was 2.67/5. HON certification was verified for only nine websites (20%). Twenty-five percent of websites were classified as 0-25% accurate, 23% were 25-50% accurate, 30% were 50-75% accurate, and 23% were 75-100% accurate.
conclusionMost information on the Internet about PPIs is reasonably accurate; however, the majority of websites are deficient in quality and unreadable to the average patient, irrespective of website type.
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.