ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2023
Online resources for information on shoulder arthroplasty: an assessment of quality and readability.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2023. 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.
- Appraisal of ChatGPT's responses to common patient questions regarding acromioclavicular joint dislocations.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Article
- Article
- The Quality and Cultural Safety of Online Osteoarthritis Information for Affected Persons and Health Care Professionals: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Appraisal of ChatGPT's responses to common patient questions regarding Tommy John surgery.Shoulder & elbow · 2024Article
- Carpal Tunnel Surgery: Can Patients Read, Understand, and Act on Online Educational Resources?The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 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
backgroundMany patients use online resources to educate themselves on surgical procedures and make well-informed healthcare decisions. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality and readability of online resources exploring shoulder arthroplasty.
methodsAn internet search pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty (partial, anatomic, and reverse) was conducted using the three most popular online search engines. The top 25 results generated from each term in each search engine were included. Webpages were excluded if they were duplicates, advertised by search engines, subpages of other pages, required payments or subscription, or were irrelevant to our scope. Webpages were classified into different source categories. Quality of information was assessed by HONcode certification, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria, and DISCERN benchmark criteria. Webpage readability was assessed using the Flesch reading ease score (FRES).
resultsOur final dataset included 125 web pages. Academic sources were the most common with 45 web pages (36.0%) followed by physician/private practice with 39 web pages (31.2%). The mean JAMA and DISCERN scores for all web pages were 1.96±1.31 and 51.4±10.7, respectively. The total mean FRES score was 44.0±11.0. Only nine web pages (7.2%) were HONcode certified. Websites specified for healthcare professionals had the highest JAMA and DISCERN scores with means of 2.92±0.90 and 57.96±8.91, respectively (P<0.001). HONcode-certified webpages had higher quality and readability scores than other web pages.
conclusionsWeb-based patient resources for shoulder arthroplasty information did not show high-quality scores and easy readability. When presenting medical information, sources should maintain a balance between readability and quality and should seek HONcode certification as it helps establish the reliability and accessibility of the presented information. Level of evidence: IV.
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.