ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024
Assessment of online information on robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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.
- Quality and readability of Turkish online patient information websites on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Assessment of printed lung cancer surgery patient education materials in the United States.JTCVS open · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Online health resources are important for patients seeking perioperative information on robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery. The value of the resources depends on their readability, accuracy, content, quality, and suitability for patient use. We systematically assess current online health information on robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery. Systematic online searches were performed to identify websites discussing robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery. For each website, readability was measured by nine standardized tests, and accuracy and content were assessed by an independent panel of two robotic cardiothoracic surgeons. Quality and suitability of websites were evaluated using the DISCERN and Suitability Assessment of Materials tools, respectively. A total of 220 websites (120 cardiac, and 100 thoracic) were evaluated. Both robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery websites were very difficult to read with mean readability scores of 13.8 and 14.0 (p = 0.97), respectively, requiring at least 13 years of education to be comprehended. Both robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery websites had similar accuracy, amount of content, quality, and suitability (p > 0.05). On multivariable regression, academic websites [Exp (B)], 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-3.16; P < 0.001), and websites with higher amount of content [Exp (B)],1.73; 95% CI, 1.24-2.41; P < 0.001) were associated with higher accuracy. There was no association between readability of websites and accuracy [Exp (B)], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.21; P = 0.57). Online information on robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery websites overestimate patients' understanding and require at least 13 years of education to be comprehended. As website accuracy is not associated with ease of reading, the readability of online resources can be improved without compromising accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38231324What 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.