ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating the Source and Content of Internet Information Regarding DeQuervain's Tenosynovitis.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Patients are increasingly relying on the internet for information about their medical diagnoses, but there is little regulation on the content of these websites. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of the informational content available on the internet regarding DeQuervain's tenosynovitis. Methods The search phrasing "'DeQuervain' OR 'DeQuervain's' OR 'Radial styloid tenosynovitis' OR 'DeQuervain's synovitis' OR 'Wrist tendonitis'" was entered into the five most commonly used search engines, and the first 50 universal resource locators (URLs) were recorded, including sponsored sites. Duplicate sites and URLs linking to other search engines were removed, yielding a roster of 109 websites that form the basis for this study. Each site was graded by two authors and scored based on a previously published information evaluation protocol regarding informational content. A third individual resolved any conflict before analysis. The sum of these scores resulted in an "Informational Score" on a scale from 0 to 100. Results Sixty-six (60.6%) of the websites evaluated were authored by an academic institution or a physician, and these all provided conventional information. Thirty-two (29.4%) of the sites were commercial sites or sold commercial products. The remaining 11 websites (10.1%) had nonphysician, unidentified, or lay authorship. The mean informational score for all sites was 46.7 out of a maximum of 100 points. The mean score of the academic or physician-authored websites was 53.3 out of 100 points, compared to 36.7 out of 100 for the remainder of the sites, which was significantly different. The mean score for the 14 sponsored websites was 11.6 out of 100. Discussion/conclusion We concluded that internet information on DeQuervain's tenosynovitis is of poor quality and incomplete. Patients looking for information about DeQuervain's tenosynovitis on the internet should be advised to focus on academic- and physician-authored sites in order to avoid commercial bias and misleading 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.