ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Quality and Readability of Online Health Information on Snapping Hip Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 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
aimThis study aims to evaluate the quality and readability of online health information related to snapping hip syndrome (SHS).
methodsA cross-sectional analysis was conducted by searching the term "Snapping Hip Syndrome" on Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The first 30 results from each search engine were assessed, and duplicate or irrelevant websites were excluded. The remaining 90 unique web pages were categorized into academic, physician, commercial, medical professional, and non-identified groups. Quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and HONcode certification, while readability was evaluated with the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Score (FKRS). The SHS Content Score (SHS-CS) was also developed for a comprehensive content-specific evaluation.
resultsAcademic websites had the highest quality scores, with DISCERN (52.10 ± 6.85), JAMA (3.48 ± 0.50), and SHS-CS (27.85 ± 2.15), but demonstrated lower readability (FKGL: 11.76 ± 0.40, FKRS: 21.45 ± 7.12). Commercial and non-identified websites scored lowest across all quality measures. Significant correlations were found between DISCERN and JAMA (r = 0.932, p = 0.000*), SHS-CS and DISCERN (r = 0.918, p = 0.000*), and a negative correlation with readability metrics (DISCERN vs. FKRS, r = -0.668, p = 0.000*).
conclusionThe quality of SHS-related online information varies significantly across website types. While academic websites provide the highest quality content, they often lack readability. HONcode-certified websites exhibited superior quality but did not differ significantly in readability compared to non-certified sites. Future efforts should focus on improving the readability of high-quality health 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.