ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2024
Quality Assessment of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Information on the Internet.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient education is a key element of spinal surgery informed consent. Patients frequently access health information online, yet this information is unregulated and of variable quality. We aimed to assess the quality of information available on degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) websites with a focus on identifying high-quality information websites.
methodsWe performed a Google search using keywords pertaining to DCM. The top 50 websites returned were classified based on their publication source, intended audience, and country of origin. The quality of these websites was assessed using both the DISCERN instrument and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. We also utilized a novel Myelopathy Information Scoring Tool (MIST) to assess the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and detail of online DCM information.
resultsThe mean DISCERN score was 39.9 out of 80. Only one-quarter of these websites were rated "good" or "excellent" using DISCERN, and the remaining were rated "very poor," "poor," and "fair." The mean JAMA benchmark score was 1.6 out of 4, with 23 out of 50 websites scoring 0. Evaluation using MIST found a mean score of 25.6 out of 50. Using 30 points as a satisfactory MIST cutoff, 72% of DCM websites were deemed critically deficient and unsatisfactory for comprehensive patient education. Both DISCERN and MIST indicated poorest information pertaining to surgical risks and complications as well as treatment outcomes. Websites such as Orthoinfo.aaos.org and Myelopathy.org provided reliable, trustworthy, and comprehensive patient education.
conclusionsInformation available on almost three-quarters of DCM websites was of poor quality, with information regarding complications and treatment outcomes most deficient. Clinicians should be aware of quality sites where patients may be directed to augment patient education and surgical counseling.
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.