ArticleCureus2023
Content, Readability, and Accountability of Online Health Information for Patients Regarding Blue Light and Impact on Ocular Health.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Performance Evaluation of Large Language Models in Keratoconus: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Gemini, Copilot, Chatsonic, and Perplexity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the quality and readability of online health content regarding the ocular health effects of blue light. Methods Five commercial and five non-commercial websites with content regarding the ocular effect of blue light were examined. Quality evaluations were conducted using a 14-question assessment composed by the authors and the 16-question DISCERN instrument. Website accountability was evaluated via the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks. Readability was determined using an online tool (Readable). Correlational and comparative analyses were conducted where appropriate. Results The average questionnaire score was 84 (standard deviation [SD] ± 17.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 77.32-90.68) out of 136 points (61.8%). Significant differences in quality were identified between websites (p = 0.02), with Healthline achieving the highest score. Compared to commercial websites, non-commercial websites trended toward having significantly higher median questionnaire scores (p = 0.06). Zero websites achieved all four JAMA benchmarks. The average reading grade level of content was 10.43 (SD ± 1.15, 95% CI 9.60 - 11.25), with differences between websites trending toward significance (p = 0.09). There was no correlation between resource readability and quality (ρ = 0.28; p = 0.43) or accountability (ρ = 0.47; p = 0.17). Conclusions There remain substantial deficiencies in the quality, accountability, and readability of online content concerning the effect of blue light on ocular health. Clinicians and patients must recognize such issues when recommending and consuming these resources.
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.