ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2023
Frequently asked questions about mobility devices among older adults.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess frequently asked questions (FAQs) about mobility devices among older adults. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched multiple terms on Google to find FAQs. Rothwell's classification, JAMA benchmark criteria, and Brief DISCERN were used to categorize and assess each entry.
resultsOur search yielded 224 unique combinations of questions and linked answer sources. Viewing questions alone resulted in 214 unique FAQs, with the majority seeking factual information (130/214, 60.7%). Viewing website sources alone resulted in 175 unique answer sources, most of which were retail commercial sites (68/175, 38.9%) followed by non-retail commercial sites (65/175, 37.1%). Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the JAMA benchmark scores by source type (p < 0.00010) and Brief DISCERN scores by source type (p = 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest government, academic, and possibly non-retail commercial sources may provide better quality information about the use of mobility devices. We recommend medical providers be prepared to promote and provide quality resources on the risks, benefits, and proper techniques for using mobility devices.
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.