ArticleJournal of vitreoretinal diseases
Quality, Readability, and Accessibility of Online Content From a Google Search of "Macular Degeneration": Critical Analysis.
Article in Journal of vitreoretinal diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Readability Analysis of Online Patient Education Materials Regarding Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Multilingual Accessibility of Health Websites for Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities: A Methodological Systematic Review.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2026Review
- Disease Awareness Among Patients With Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Patterns and Predictors.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
- Google Trends-Assisted Analysis of the Readability, Accountability, and Accessibility of Online Patient Education Materials for the Treatment of AMD After US FDA Approval of Pegcetacoplan.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
- Comparing the Accuracy and Readability of Glaucoma-related Question Responses and Educational Materials by Google and ChatGPT.Journal of current glaucoma practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This work aims to assess the quality, accountability, readability, accessibility, and presence of Spanish translation in online material through a Google search of "macular degeneration". Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional analysis of website results from a Google search of "macular degeneration", the quality and accountability for each website were assessed using the DISCERN criteria and the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) principles. All 31 sites were independently graded by 2 ophthalmologists. Readability was evaluated using an online tool. The presence of accessibility features on the website and Spanish translation was recorded. The primary outcome measure was the DISCERN and HONcode quality and accountability scores of each website. Secondary outcome measures included the readability, accessibility, and presence of Spanish translation. Results: The mean ± SD of each criterion across all 15 DISCERN questions was 2.761 ± 0.666 (out of 5). The mean HONcode score for all websites was 7.355 ± 3.123. The mean consensus reading grade level was 10.258 ± 2.49. There were no statistically significant differences in any score between the top 5 websites and the bottom 26 websites evaluated. Accessibility was available on 10 of 31 websites. Spanish translation was available on 10 of 31 websites. Conclusions: The top 5 websites that appeared on a Google search did not have better quality or readability of online content. Improving quality, accountability, and readability can help improve patients' health literacy regarding macular degeneration.
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.