ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
A Systematic Quality Assessment of Online Resources on Eyelid Ptosis Using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (mEQIP) Tool.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Quality of Online Patient Information on Surgical Management of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Comprehensive Assessment Using the mEQIP Tool.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Correspondence to "Online Information on Lymphedema: Systematic Review of the Quality of Online Patient Resources".Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEyelid ptosis is an underestimated pathology deeply affecting patients' quality of life. Internet has increasingly become the major source of information regarding health care, and patients often browse on websites to acquire an initial knowledge on the subject. However, there is lack of data concerning the quality of available information focusing on the eyelid ptosis and its treatment. We systematically evaluated online information quality on eyelid ptosis by using the "Ensuring Quality Information for Patients" (EQIP) scale. MATERIALS AND
methodsGoogle, Yahoo and Bing have been searched for the keywords "Eyelid ptosis," "Eyelid ptosis surgery" and "Blepharoptosis." The first 50 hits were included, evaluating the quality of information with the expanded EQIP tool. Websites in English and intended for general non-medical public use were included. Irrelevant documents, videos, pictures, blogs and articles with no access were excluded.
resultsOut of 138 eligible websites, 79 (57,7%) addressed more than 20 EQIP items, with an overall median score of 20,2. Only 2% discussed procedure complication rates. The majority fail to disclose severe complications and quantifying risks, fewer than 18% clarified the potential need for additional treatments. Surgical procedure details were lacking, and there was insufficient information about pre-/postoperative precautions for patients. Currently, online quality information has not improved since COVID-19 pandemic.
conclusionsThis study highlights the urgent requirement for improved patient-oriented websites adhering to international standards for plastic and oculoplastic surgery. Healthcare providers should effectively guide their patients in finding trustworthy and reliable eyelid ptosis correction information. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
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.