ArticleCureus2024
Quality Assessment of Online Health Information on Thyroid Cancer in the Arabic Language: 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 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.
- Quality of Online Information in Arabic for Patient Education Regarding Cancer Chemotherapy.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Quality and readability of online penile-cancer information: a Cross-Sectional Web Study.International journal of impotence research · 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 The internet is a crucial source of health information, including cancer-related topics, but the quality and reliability of these resources can vary, affecting patient decision-making. Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the quality of thyroid cancer-related websites in the Arabic language, using the DISCERN tool, and explore the content and sources provided by different types of websites. Methods A total of 78 websites were included after excluding 21 based on predefined criteria (e.g., duplicates, non-functional uniform resource locators (URLs)). The websites were categorized into commercial, non-profit, and individual types. Two independent reviewers assessed the websites using the DISCERN tool. Interrater agreement was measured using the k-score. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare DISCERN scores across website types, and Spearman's rank correlation was used to analyze the relationship between website ranking and DISCERN scores. Results Almost all websites included a definition of thyroid cancer. Additionally, 15 websites (19.2%) covered the definition, clinical presentation, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment, while 14 websites (17.9%) offered only clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment, and 11 websites (14.1%) offered other combinations of similar content. However, there was a lack of information regarding prognosis and predictors of outcomes following thyroid cancer surgery. The average overall DISCERN score for the 78 websites was 42.65 ± 12.35. Statistically significant differences were found in DISCERN scores across website types, with non-profit websites scoring the highest (38.93 ± 14.12), followed by commercial (37.67 ± 10.34) and individual websites (28.63 ± 10.02). A significant negative correlation was also found between website rank and DISCERN scores (Spearman's r = -0.38, p < 0.0001). Conclusion The study found that non-profit websites provide higher-quality thyroid cancer information compared to commercial and individual sites. Website ranking also affects content quality, emphasizing the importance of patients assessing online resources critically. Health organizations are encouraged to improve the visibility and quality of trustworthy 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.