ArticleJMIR dermatology2025
Modern Digital Query Analytics of Patient Education Materials on Acanthosis Nigricans: Systematic Search and Content Analysis.
Article in JMIR dermatology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Online digital materials are integral to patient education and health care outcomes in dermatology. Acanthosis nigricans (AN) is a common condition, often associated with underlying diseases such as insulin resistance. Patients frequently search the internet for information related to this cutaneous finding. To our knowledge, the quality of online educational materials for AN has not been systematically examined. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to profile the readability and quality of the content of publicly available digital educational materials on AN and identify questions frequently asked by patients. Methods: This study analyzed publicly available internet sources to identify the most frequent questions searched by patients regarding AN using the Google Rankbrain algorithm. Furthermore, available articles on AN were evaluated for quality and reading level using metrics such as the Brief DISCERN score, and readability was determined using three specific scales including the Flesch-Kincaid score, Gunning Fog index, and the Coleman-Liau index, based on literature. Results: Patients most frequently accessed facts on AN from government sources, which comprised 30% (n=15) of the analyzed sources. The available articles did not meet quality standards and were at a reading level not appropriate for the general public. The majority of articles (n=29/50, 58%) had substandard Brief DISCERN scores, failing to meet the criteria for good quality. Conclusions: Clinicians should be aware of the paucity of valuable online educational material on AN and educate their patients accordingly.
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.