Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38393781›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024

Web-Based Information on Spinal Cord Stimulation: Qualitative Assessment of Publicly Accessible Online Resources.

Tiev Miller, Ali Hosseinzadeh, Thomas Thordarson, Tamila Kalimullina, Soshi Samejima, Claire Shackleton, Raza Malik, Martín Calderón-Juárez, Rahul Sachdeva, Andrei Krassioukov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tiev Miller *International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5675-2824
Ali Hosseinzadeh *International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9939-0525
Thomas ThordarsonInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2739-3321
Tamila KalimullinaInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4308-9992
Soshi SamejimaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3796-8085
Claire ShackletonInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5042-1490
Raza MalikInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5816-162X
Martín Calderón-JuárezInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1438-2188
Rahul SachdevaInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7972-9344
Andrei KrassioukovInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0022-7972

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the growing accessibility of web-based information related to spinal cord stimulation (SCS), the content and quality of commonly encountered websites remain unknown.

objectiveThis study aimed to assess the content and quality of web-based information on SCS.

methodsThis qualitative study was prospectively registered in Open Science Framework. Google Trends was used to identify the top trending, SCS-related search queries from 2012 to 2022. Top queried terms were then entered into separate search engines. Information found on websites within the first 2 pages of results was extracted and assessed for quality using the DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria, and the Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct certification. Website readability and SCS-related information were also assessed.

resultsAfter exclusions, 42 unique sites were identified (scientific resources: n=6, nonprofit: n=12, for-profit: n=20, news or media: n=2, and personal or blog: n=2). Overall, information quality was moderate (DISCERN). Few sites met all the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria (n=3, 7%) or had Health on the Net Foundation certification (n=7, 16%). On average, information was difficult to read, requiring a 9th- to 10th-grade level of reading comprehension. Sites described SCS subcategories (n=14, 33%), indications (n=38, 90%), contraindications (n=14, 33%), side effects or risks (n=28, 66%), device considerations (n=25, 59%), follow-up (n=22, 52%), expected outcomes (n=31, 73%), provided authorship details (n=20, 47%), and publication dates (n=19, 45%). The proportion of for-profit sites reporting authorship information was comparatively less than other site types (n=3, 15%). Almost all sites focused on surgically implanted SCS (n=37, 88%). On average, nonprofit sites contained the greatest number of peer-reviewed reference citations (n=6, 50%). For-profit sites showed the highest proportion of physician or clinical referrals among site types (n=17, 85%) indicating implicit bias (ie, auto-referral).

conclusionsOverall, our findings suggest the public may be exposed to incomplete or dated information from unidentifiable sources that could put consumers and patient groups at risk.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationSpinal Cord StimulationComprehensionHumansInternetReadingUnited Statesaccess to informationcommunicationconsumer health informationGoogle Trendsinternetmisinformationqualityreadabilityspinal cord stimulationsynthesisweb-based information

Identifiers

PMID38393781
PMCPMC10924266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.