ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2024
Evaluation of the Accuracy, Credibility, and Readability of Statin-Related Websites: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) represents the greatest burden of mortality worldwide, and statins are the most commonly prescribed drug in its management. A wealth of information pertaining to statins and their side effects is on the internet; however, to date, no assessment of the accuracy, credibility, and readability of this information has been undertaken.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the quality (accuracy, credibility, and readability) of websites likely to be visited by the general public undertaking a Google search of the side effects and use of statin medications.
methodsFollowing a Google web search, we reviewed the top 20 consumer-focused websites with statin information. Website accuracy, credibility, and readability were assessed based on website category (commercial, not-for-profit, and media), website rank, and the presence or absence of the Health on the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode) seal. Accuracy and credibility were assessed following the development of checklists (with 20 and 13 items, respectively). Readability was assessed using the Simple Measure of Gobbledegook scores.
resultsOverall, the accuracy score was low (mean 14.35 out of 20). While side effects were comprehensively covered by 18 websites, there was little information about statin use in primary and secondary prevention. None of the websites met all criteria on the credibility checklist (mean 7.8 out of 13). The median Simple Measure of Gobbledegook score was 9.65 (IQR 8.825-10.85), with none of the websites meeting the recommended reading grade of 6, even the media websites. A website bearing the HONcode seal did not mean that the website was more comprehensive or readable.
conclusionsThe quality of statin-related websites tended to be poor. Although the information contained was accurate, it was not comprehensive and was presented at a reading level that was too difficult for an average reader to fully comprehend. As such, consumers risk being uninformed about this pharmacotherapy.
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.