ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2024
What are our patients asking Google about acromioclavicular joint injuries?-frequently asked online questions and the quality of online resources.
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- YouTube as a source for clavicle fracture education: a quality, comprehensibility, and reliability assessment.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- YouTube as a source of patient education on scaphoid fractures: A quality, transparency, and educational content analysis.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2026Article
- Advantages and Disadvantages of the Arthroscopic Procedure in Acromioclavicular Separation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Online patients questions regarding reverse total shoulder arthroplasty pertain to timeline of recovery, specific activities, and limitations.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-4.0 vs. Google: Which Provides More Academic Answers to Patients' Questions on Arthroscopic Meniscus Repair?Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Management of acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries has been an ongoing source of debate, with over 150 variations of surgery described in the literature. Without a consensus on surgical technique, patients are seeking answers to common questions through internet resources. This study investigates the most common online patient questions pertaining to AC joint injuries and the quality of the websites providing information. Hypothesis: 1) Question topics will pertain to surgical indications, pain management, and success of surgery and 2) the quality and transparency of online information are largely heterogenous. Methods: Three AC joint search queries were entered into the Google Web Search. Questions under the "People also ask" tab were expanded in order and 100 results for each query were included (300 total). Questions were categorized based on Rothwell's classification. Websites were categorized by source. Website quality was evaluated by the Results: Most questions fell into the Rothwell Fact category (48.0%). The most common question topics were surgical indications (28.0%), timeline of recovery (13.0%), and diagnosis/evaluation (12.0%). The least common question topics were anatomy/function (3.3%), evaluation of surgery (3.3%), injury comparison (1.0%), and cost (1.0%). The most common websites were medical practice (44.0%), academic (22.3%), and single surgeon personal (12.3%). The average Conclusion: Online patient AC joint injury questions pertain to surgical indications, timeline of recovery, and diagnosis/evaluation. Government websites and PubMed articles provide the highest-quality sources of reliable, up-to-date information but constitute the smallest proportion of resources. In contrast, medical practice represents the most visited websites, however, recorded the lowest quality score. Physicians should utilize this information to answer frequently asked questions, guide patient expectations, and help provide and identify reliable online resources.
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.