ArticleJPRAS open2024
Evaluating the Quality of Online Patient Information for Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Using Polyurethane-Coated Breast Implants.
Article in JPRAS open, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An increasing number of patients are using online information regarding medical issues; however, the Internet is not subject to content ratings or filters. Unreliable information found on the web can heavily influence patients to the extent that it can lead to wrong decisions in the choice of treatment. In our daily experience we meet more informed patients and given the increasing use of polyurethane-coated implants in breast reconstruction in Europe, we wondered about the level of information available online. Our study aims to assess the quality of information available online on breast reconstruction with polyurethane-coated implants. Materials and Methods: Assuming that the most used search engines are Google and Yahoo, we used a search strategy to identify online information regarding prepectoral breast reconstruction with polyurethane-coated implants. The selected websites were divided into 5 groups (practitioners, hospitals, healthcare portals, professional societies, and encyclopedias), and the quality of information was assessed by using an expanded version of the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool, which is a checklist applicable to all existing types of information. Results: Fifty-six websites were selected and were categorized into 5 groups: 17 practitioners, 9 hospitals, 13 healthcare portals, 7 professional societies, 10 encyclopedias. The average score was 17 points (range: 12 - 25). We found 13 reliable websites with a score higher than 20 using the expanded version of the EQIP tool, whereas 43 were deemed unreliable, as they scored lower. Conclusion: Proper communication between surgeon and patient is crucial in the therapeutic choice, as the available online information presently is scarce and can lead to wrong decisions if not properly verified.
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.