ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Internet resources on plantar fasciitis : German-language analysis of the information content of digital sourcess].
Review in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlantar fasciitis belongs to the most common reasons for a consultation in medical institutions. Websites are assisting health education in this field; however, the quality is sometimes questionable.
objectivesThe quality of websites thematising plantar fasciitis was evaluated in a descriptive survey regarding content, structure, readability and visual aspects. Information of literature added by score results was used to create a website describing foot diseases. MATERIALS AND
methodsKeywords chosen by Google Ads were searched for in Google, Bing and Yahoo. Search results were analysed according to linguistic scores (EQIP36, 25-Item, Flesch-Kincaid). A third of these score worths were summarized as a total score. An online survey examined three websites with the highest scores. An optimized website was created.
results137 websites and 37 videos were scored. Arithmetic averages amounted to 72 (EQIP36), 15 (25-Item), 43 (Flesch-Kincaid), 59 (total score). Major websites with the best results in 25-Item were prepared by physicians. Websites of encyclopedias reached the best reading level, whereas those of health insurance funds received the highest values in EQIP36 and the total score. Websites with the lowest total score, EQIP36, 25-Item did not mention any sources. Websites including videos created by the medical sector reached a higher total score and reading levels. The outcome of the survey was slightly worse than the results of the score.
conclusionsA lack of high qualified websites regarding foot pain was identified. This information can help producers of websites for digital patient education to improve the inadequate aspects.
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.