ArticleIrish journal of medical science2024
Evaluating online patient education materials for liver cirrhosis.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsLiver cirrhosis affects 4.5 million adults in the United States (US). As more patients educate themselves online, we evaluated the accessibility, quality, understandability, accuracy, readability, and comprehensiveness (AQUA-RC) of online patient education materials for cirrhosis.
methodsCross-sectional analysis using Google
results28 websites and 25 videos were included. Accessibility was equal across all regions. Websites had higher average quality scores than videos, although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.84). Websites were more understandable than videos (p < 0.00001). Both websites and videos were 100% accurate. Readability for websites was higher than recommended standards. Websites were more comprehensive than videos (p = 0.02).
conclusionOnline patient education materials for cirrhosis in the US are equally accessible, but readability and understandability are too complex. Websites are of greater quality, accuracy, and comprehensiveness than YouTube videos, which are often narrowly focused and targeted at the medical community rather than patients. Further efforts should be made to improve online patient education and expand content across platforms.
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.