ReviewJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2024
IVC filter - assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the Internet.
Review in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe internet is an increasingly favorable source of information regarding health-related issues. The aim of this study is to apply appropriate evaluation tools to assess the evidence available online about inferior vena cava (IVC) filters with a focus on quality and readability.
methodsA search was performed during December 2022 using three popular search engines, namely Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Websites were categorized into academic, physician, commercial, and unspecified websites according to their content. Information quality was determined using Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria, the DISCERN scoring tool, and whether a Health On the Net Foundation certification (HONcode) seal was present. Readability was established using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Statistical significance was accepted as P < .05.
resultsIn total, 110 websites were included in our study. The majority of websites were categorized as commercial (25%), followed by hospital (24%), academic (21%), unspecified (16%), and physician (14%). Average scores for all websites using JAMA and DISCERN were 1.93 ± 1.19 (median, 1.5; range, 0-4) and 45.20 ± 12.58 (median, 45.5; range, 21-75), respectively. The highest JAMA mean score of 3.07 ± 1.16 was allocated to physician websites, and the highest DISCERN mean score of 52.85 ± 12.66 was allocated to hospital websites. The HONcode seal appeared on two of the selected websites. Physician, hospital, and unspecified websites had a significantly higher mean JAMA score than academic and commercial websites (all with P < .001). Hospital websites had a significantly higher mean DISCERN score than academic (P = .007), commercial (P < .001), and unspecified websites (P = .017). Readability evaluation generated a mean FRES score of 51.57 ±12.04, which represented a 10th to 12th grade reading level and a mean FKGL score of 8.20 ± 1.70, which represented an 8th to 10th grade reading level. Only 12 sources were found to meet the ≤6th grade target reading level. No significant correlation was found between overall DISCERN score and overall FRES score.
conclusionsThe study results demonstrate that the quality of online information about IVC filters is suboptimal, and academic and commercial websites, in particular, must enhance their content quality regarding the use of IVC filters. Considering the discontinuation of the HONcode as a standardized quality assessment marker, it is recommended that a similar certification tool be developed and implemented for the accreditation of patient information online.
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.