ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024
Thematic coverage and readability of online patient information on cochlear implant care.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What Do People Want to Know About Cochlear Implants: A Google Analytic Study.The Laryngoscope · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe treatment of patients with a cochlear implant (CI) is usually an elective, complex and interdisciplinary process. As an important source of information, patients often access the internet prior to treatment. The quality of internet-based information regarding thematic coverage has not yet been analysed in detail. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the information on CI care available on the internet regarding its thematic coverage and readability. MATERIAL
methodsEight search phrases related to CI care were defined as part of the study. A checklist for completeness of thematic coverage was then created for each search phrase. The current German CI clinical practice guideline and the white paper on CI care in Germany were used as a basis. As a further parameter, readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease Scores. The search phrases were used for an internet search with Google. The first ten results were then analysed with regard to thematic coverage, readability and the provider of the website.
resultsA total of 80 websites were identified, which were set up by 54 different providers (16 providers were found in multiple entries) from eight different provider groups. The average completeness of thematic coverage was 41.6 ± 28.2%. Readability according to the Flesch Reading Ease Score was categorised as "hard to read" on average (34.7 ± 14.2 points, range: 0-72). There was a negative statistically significant correlation between the thematic coverage of content and readability (Spearman's rank correlation: r = - 0.413, p = 0.00014). The completeness of thematic coverage of information on CI care available on the internet was highly heterogeneous and had a significant negative correlation with the readability. This result should be taken into account by both the providers of internet information and by patients when using internet-based information on CI care and help to further improve the quality of web-based information.
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.