ArticleSpine deformity2025
Are we being forthright with the patients about vertebral body tethering? Quality, contemporaneity, and readability analysis of the online content about vertebral body tethering.
Article in Spine deformity, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe majority of patients refer to online patient education content before elective surgeries, including Vertebral Body Tethering (VBT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality, contemporaneity, and readability of patient information web pages across different sources (teaching hospital, private HCF, commercial/news, and non-profit organization) on VBT.
methodsThe search results from Google and Bing were analyzed using a systematic approach, excluding peer-reviewed articles, insurance policy documents, and videos. Forty-seven web pages were reviewed for quality based on preoperative, operative, and postoperative information, alongside compliance with Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. The web page content was assessed using a contemporaneity score, which evaluated the inclusion of the latest research. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade level and Gunning-Fog Index.
resultsThe overall mean quality score, JAMA score, and contemporaneity scores were 7.63 (95% CI 6.63-8.64) out of 16, one (95% CI 0.68-1.32) out of four, and 0.61 (95% CI 0.33-0.9) out of five, respectively. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Gunning-Fog index were 11.7 (95% CI 10.88-12.55) and 14.94 (95% CI 14.12-15.75), respectively. Higher Quality scores also correlated with better Flesch-Kincaid and Gunning-Fox readability scores (Quality score-Flesch-Kincaid grade level: ρ = - 0.38, p = 0.0074; Quality score-Gunning-Fog index: ρ = - 0.354, p = 0.0161).
conclusionExisting patient education material contains limited and fragmentary information, lacks essential details, does not reflect the current limitations of VBT, and is written at a much advanced reading level than recommended. The material requires thorough revision, given that VBT is a relatively new surgical procedure with evolving indications and outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40229485What 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.