ArticleUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Reliability of digital health information on stress urinary incontinence compared between different platforms].
Article in Urologie (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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe interest in digital information on pelvic floor dysfunction is constantly increasing. Various digital platforms offer an easy and anonymous way for patients to seek information about their condition. However, little is known about the quality of the information on the different platforms or about the how the quality of different sites compares.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the completeness and quality of information on the search term "stress urinary incontinence" in comparison between different digital platforms. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic analysis of the keyword search "stress urinary incontinence" was performed on Google and the social networks Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and LinkedIn. The first 30 search results on each platform were evaluated. The results were categorized according to information content and readability. The Health On the Net Foundation (HON) seal was used to assess medical quality.
resultsThe proportion of informative content was highest on YouTube (97%) and Google (93%). Content was predominantly provided by professional organizations on Google and YouTube. Information on conservative therapies dominated across all platforms. Surgical therapies were only discussed in up to 63% of results on Google and in up to 50% of results on YouTube. In most cases, there was also no comprehensive presentation of all surgical options. The readability of the texts was unsuitable for laypersons on all platforms, and HON certification was only present on Google (37%) and YouTube (3%).
conclusionThe results offer practical insights into the quality of digital information on stress urinary incontinence. However, they show deficits in readability and comprehensive presentation of surgical therapies. The physician-patient relationship remains indispensable for taking individual needs into account and avoiding misinformation.
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.