SynthesisAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2024
Quality assessment of online patient information on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.
Synthesis in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 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.
- Article
- Article
- Article
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
introductionWebsites and online resources are increasingly becoming patients' main source of healthcare information. It is paramount that high quality information is available online to enhance patient education and improve clinical outcomes. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy is the gold standard investigation for UGI symptoms and yet little is known regarding the quality of patient orientated websites. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of online patient information on UGI endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool.
methodsTen search terms were employed to conduct a systematic review. for each term, the top 100 websites identified via a Google search were assessed using the modified EQIP tool. High scoring websites underwent further analysis. Websites intended for professional use by clinicians as well as those containing video or marketing content were excluded.
findingsA total of 378 websites were eligible for analysis. The median modified EQIP score for UGI endoscopy was 18/36 (interquartile range: 14-21). The median EQIP scores for the content, identification and structure domains were 8/18, 1/6 and 9/12 respectively. Higher modified EQIP scores were obtained for websites produced by government departments and National Health Service hospitals (
conclusionsThere is an immediate need to improve the quality of online patient information regarding UGI endoscopy. The currently available resources provide minimal information on the risks associated with the procedure, potentially hindering patients' ability to make informed healthcare decisions.
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.