ArticleCureus2024
Assessment of the Quality and Readability of Online Resources on Corneal Transplantation.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to evaluate the quality and readability of corneal transplant websites.
methodsWe examined internet resources related to corneal transplantation. The search terms "cornea transplantation," "keratoplasty," "keratoprothesis," and "eye transplantation" were searched on www.google.com. A total of 200 websites were scanned, with 50 websites for each search term. In the final evaluation, 113 websites were included in the study. DISCERN and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scales were used to evaluate the websites' quality. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) were used to evaluate the readability of the information. The presence of the Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONCode) certification on websites was examined in terms of quality.
resultsThe total DISCERN score was 42.47 ± 17.06, and the score for the JAMA was 1.58 ± 1.52. The FKGL and SMOG scores were found to be 9.19 ± 2.08 and 8.20 ± 5.23, respectively. Most of the websites we examined related to corneal transplantation were profit websites. These websites had low JAMA and DISCERN scores but relatively high readability levels. They were sites that provided low-quality information and had more financial bias and conflict of interest. Journal and book websites were found to have higher readability scores. Journal and book-sourced websites with higher FKGL and SMOG scores were more difficult to read.
conclusionMost of the websites exhibit financial bias, and as a result, they contain low-quality information. Online information must be more regulated for patients to easily access accurate, high-quality information.
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.