ArticleNeuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press)2024
Assessment of the Quality, Accountability, and Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Optic Neuritis.
Article in Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press), 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.
- Mapping the Reliability-Readability Gap in the Education of Patients With Age-Related Macular Degeneration Across 6 Large Language Models: Comparative Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Cloudy or Clear? Readability and Content Analysis of Patient Education Materials in Myasthenia Gravis.Muscle & nerve · 2026Article
- Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Myopia Management.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
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
Most cases of optic neuritis (ON) occur in women and in patients between the ages of 15 and 45 years, which represents a key demographic of individuals who seek health information using the internet. As clinical providers strive to ensure patients have accessible information to understand their condition, assessing the standard of online resources is essential. To assess the quality, content, accountability, and readability of online information for optic neuritis. This cross-sectional study analyzed 11 freely available medical sites with information on optic neuritis and used PubMed as a gold standard for comparison. Twelve questions were composed to include the information most relevant to patients, and each website was independently examined by four neuro-ophthalmologists. Readability was analyzed using an online readability tool. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, four criteria designed to assess the quality of health information further were used to evaluate the accountability of each website. Freely available online information. On average, websites scored 27.98 (SD ± 9.93, 95% CI 24.96-31.00) of 48 potential points (58.3%) for the twelve questions. There were significant differences in the comprehensiveness and accuracy of content across websites (
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.