ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2024
Evaluating the Accuracy, Quality, and Readability of Online Breast Cancer Information.
Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 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.
- A retrospective multi-institutional assessment of breast radiology and pathology report readability and a novel patient tool (MedEd) utilizing American literacy standards.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To assess the accuracy, quality, and readability of patient-focused breast cancer websites using expert evaluation and validated tools. Background: Ensuring access to accurate, high-quality, and readable online health information supports informed decision-making and health equity but has not been recently evaluated. Methods: A qualitative analysis on 50 websites was conducted; the first 10 eligible websites for the following search terms were included: "breast cancer," "breast surgery," "breast reconstructive surgery," "breast chemotherapy," and "breast radiation therapy." Websites were required to be in English and not intended for healthcare professionals. Accuracy was evaluated by 5 breast cancer specialists. Quality was evaluated through the DISCERN questionnaire. Readability was measured using 9 standardized tests. Mean readability was compared with the American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health 6th grade recommendation. Results: Nonprofit hospital websites had the highest accuracy (mean = 4.06, SD = 0.42); however, no statistical differences were observed in accuracy by website affiliation ( Conclusion: As breast cancer treatment has become increasingly complex, improving online quality and readability while maintaining high accuracy is essential to promote health equity and empower patients to make informed decisions about their care.
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.