ArticleCureus2024
Identifying and Evaluating Online Kidney Stone Pain Resources: A Cross-Sectional 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.
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.
- An assessment of the quality and readability level of online content on urinary tract infection treatment in Spanish and English.Translational andrology and urology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and objectives With the continuous growth of social media platforms, an increasing number of individuals are turning to them as their main source of medical information. This article aims to pinpoint the most widely accessed online resources on kidney stone pain among those who suffer from kidney stones and to assess the reliability, understandability, quality, and actionability of their content. Materials and methods The social media analysis platform BuzzSumo was employed to identify pertinent articles and assess their engagement levels. The DISCERN instrument was utilized to evaluate the quality of the top 10 most popular articles, while online software for determining reading grade levels was used to assess article readability. Additionally, the PEMAT (Patient Education Material Assessment Tool) was employed to gauge the actionability and understandability of these articles. Results The BuzzSumo results were obtained through four search categories: "passing stones," "home remedies," "stent pain," and "back pain." DISCERN exhibited a mean article score of 2.67/5, indicating low quality. The average reading grade level for articles was 10.4, with a median of 10. PEMAT results indicated an average understandability score of 60%, signifying that most articles were not easily understandable, and an average actionability score of 31%, indicating a lack of actionable steps in the majority of articles to improve health outcomes. Conclusions Online resources about kidney stone pain were found to have shortcomings, including content with a reading level higher than average, and a lack of actionable solutions for improving overall health.
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.