ArticlePediatric surgery international2024
Evaluating the web as a source of information for patients with chest wall deformities: insights into engagement and disparities.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Online Information on Lymphedema: Systematic Review of the Quality of Online Patient Resources.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Pooled it
- Enhancing Patient Outcomes in Hidradenitis Suppurativa: The Interplay of Health Literacy and Online Resource Quality.Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of an integrated stepwise rehabilitation model following Nuss procedure in pediatric patients.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent data highlight the internet's pivotal role as the primary information source for patients. In this study, we emulate a patient's/caregiver's quest for online information concerning chest deformities and assess the quality of available information.
methodsWe conducted an internet search using combination of the terms "pectus excavatum," "pectus excavatum surgery," "funnel chest," "pectus excavatum repair" and identified the first 100 relevant websites from the three most popular search engines: Google, Yahoo, and Bing. These websites were evaluated using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) instrument.
resultsOf the 300 websites generated, 140 (46.7%) were included in our evaluation after elimination of duplicates, non-English websites, and those targeting medical professionals. The EQIP scores in the final sample ranged from 8 to 32/36, with a median score of 22. Most of the evaluated websites (32.8%) originated from hospitals, yet none met all 36 EQIP criteria. DISCUSSION: None of the evaluated websites pertaining to pectus excavatum achieved a flawless "content quality" score. The diverse array of websites potentially complicates patients' efforts to navigate toward high-quality resources. Barriers in accessing high-quality online patient information may contribute to disparities in referral, patient engagement, treatment satisfaction, and overall quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38833023What 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.