ArticleScientific reports2024
Compliance with web content accessibility guidelines in ophthalmology social media posts.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Design to Accountable Impact for Data Dashboards in Health Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Alternative audio-graphic method for presenting structural information in mathematical graphs designed for low-vision users.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- AI testing, evaluation, verification and validation for accessibility: a comprehensive framework.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This is a cross-sectional exploratory analysis of publicly available Internet data to examine compliance to web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) on patient education social media posts in ophthalmology. WCAG ensures web content accessibility for those with disabilities (including visual impairment). A total of 100 social media posts were sampled from ten ophthalmology patient education social media pages and ten non-ophthalmology (cardiopulmonary) pages as the comparison group. Three independent graders evaluated the selected posts based on the WCAG 2 checklist by WebAIM, a non-profit affiliated with Utah State University, after its adaptation for social media posts. Validated accessibility standard labels: "0" for not meeting any standards, "1" or "A" for meeting bare minimum accessibility requirements, "2" or "AA" for meeting legal accessibility requirements, or "3" or "AAA" for exceeding accessibility requirements. There was not enough evidence to detect a difference in WCAG scores between ophthalmology and non-ophthalmology posts (p = 0.80). Forty-nine percent of scores for ophthalmology social media posts showed no compliance with any WCAG. The most common reasons that ophthalmology posts failed to meet criteria were due to color and contrast issues (39%). Most ophthalmology social media posts had low WCAG scores, indicating poor compliance to WCAG. Because social media is highly visual, reduced compliance to WCAG may create barriers for low vision individuals to successfully access patient education social media content.
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.