ArticleOTO open
Online Health Education About Sialendoscopy: A Study on Readability and Reliability.
Article in OTO open. 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
Objective: Sialendoscopy is a diagnostic and interventional treatment for patients with salivary disease. Patients and physicians leverage website information to acquire knowledge about sialendoscopy; thus, understanding the quality of this information is essential. This study analyzes the quality and readability of online information on sialendoscopy. Methods: "Sialendoscopy" was searched on Google, and the first 100 websites were evaluated. Each website was required to meet three criteria for inclusion: accessible when opened, content deemed relevant, and available in written format. Four validated readability and two validated reliability metrics were utilized. Additionally, a separate analysis was conducted for the top nine websites in the search engine, given most web traffic occurs on Google's first page. Results: In assessing readability, the mean Flesch Reading Ease Score for included and the top nine websites was 36.2 and 39.5, respectively, with a Discussion: The low readability and reliability scores implied that the online health information on sialendoscopy is not easily understandable at a reading level appropriate for the general public. Our findings showed that the most readable and highest quality websites were not the highest ranked in our search results. Factors such as search engine algorithms and complex medical terminology used in these informative websites contribute to the lack of readability and relability of online health education. Implications for Practice: As AI evolves, future studies should be conducted to assess its impact on readability and reliability of online health information. There is an opportunity to adjust search engine algorithms, collaborate with communications specialists, and utilize new technologies, such as artificial intelligence chatbots, for the benefit of health seekers.
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.