ArticleCureus2024
A Critical Assessment of the Quality and Readability of Information on Gastric Cancer Available on the Internet for Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Readability and DISCERN Quality of Osteoporosis Education Materials Generated by ChatGPT and Deepseek for Diverse Health Literacy Levels: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality of online patient education materials for gastric adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in digital health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction It is now commonplace for patients to consult the internet with health-related questions. Unfortunately, the quality of information provided to them online is highly variable. Ensuring that patients get high-quality, reliable information is essential for all pathologies. Gastric cancer (GC), with its often subtle early symptoms and signs, is one such pathology where early identification is crucial. Ensuring high-quality information availability online for GC is thus essential to increasing rates of early detection. Aims This study aimed to assess the quality and readability of information posted on websites related to GC. Materials and methods We applied the search term "gastric cancer" or "stomach cancer" to the top three search engines, namely Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified 20 unique websites posting information related to gastric cancer (GC). We then assessed the quality and readability of the information posted on these websites. We used recognized tools to complete these assessments, including the JAMA benchmark criteria, the DISCERN tool, the Flesch Reading Ease score (FRES), and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). We also developed and used a novel GC-specific content assessment tool. Furthermore, we assessed whether or not each website was awarded the Health on the Internet Seal of Approval. Results The average JAMA score was 1.55, with none of the twenty unique websites scoring the maximum 4 points. The average DISCERN score was 54.8 (68.5%), with no website achieving the maximum of 80. The HON seal was present in only six websites (30%). The average GCSCS score was 11, with only five websites achieving a maximum score of 13 (25%). The average FRES and FKGL were 52.7 and 9.7, respectively. Conclusion Our study underscores the critical need for more high-quality, reliable information about GC online. We also emphasize the importance of ensuring this information is comprehensible to most patients, as it directly impacts their health outcomes.
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.