ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating the Quality of Information in Instagram Posts Related to Spine Surgery: A Methodological Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of the quality, readability, and reliability of web-based pediatric neurosurgical patient education information.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of information in Instagram posts related to spine surgeries. Materials and methods Seven hashtags related to the most common spine surgeries were identified (#scoliosissurgery, #spondylolisthesis, #microdiscectomy, #spinalfusionsurgery, #spinesurgery, #acdfsurgery, and #vertebroplasty). The first 15 posts listed by the Instagram algorithm for each hashtag were recorded. A total of 105 posts were found, of which 96 were relevant to the research topic, and they were evaluated by two independent physicians using a Modified DISCERN analysis consisting of five questions. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and comparisons were made using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test (p=0.05). Results Fifty percent of the posts (n=48) were shared by physicians, and 50% (n=48) were shared by patients. Among these, 79.2% were photos (n=76), and 20.8% were videos (n=20). When evaluating the information quality of patient and physician posts, the information quality of the physician group was found to be significantly higher than that of the patient group (p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the information quality of photo and video posts (P=0.129). Conclusion Although the posts shared by physicians are considered more reliable than those shared by patients, Instagram posts are not regarded as a reliable source of information for patients.
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.