ArticleCureus2024
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: A Review of Quality and Reliability of Online Information.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim This study aims to evaluate the reliability and quality of online information on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Methods An internet search on the three top search engines, Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, was done using the keywords "anterior cruciate ligament injury". The search was carried out in June 2023, and 39 websites were selected. Exclusion criteria comprised video-only explanatory websites (such as YouTube) and access requiring payment or registration. Websites were categorised using the following scoring systems: (i) DISCERN score, (ii) Health-on-Net Foundation Code (HON code), (iii) Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and (iv) ACL content score, which was specifically designed for this study. Results The majority of websites were commercial (n = 16 [41.0%]), followed by academic (n = 10 [25.6%]). None of the websites included had a HON code present. The mean DISCERN score was 52.1, the mean JAMA score was 2.62, and the mean ACL content score was 7.49. Conclusion There is a vast amount of information available on the internet with regard to the topic of ACL injuries, and this ranges from excellent to poor-quality information. In light of this, orthopaedic specialists and healthcare providers must guide patients to online resources that are reliable and trusted based on either their personal experience or resource type (academic/physician). In addition, we recommend that websites providing information seek HON-code certification as a seal of quality, as this has previously been noted in previous studies to be positively linked with the quality of information delivered.
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.