ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Evaluation of Online Patient Education Materials for Acute Myeloid Leukemia.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the quality of online patient education materials for gastric adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
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
In the modern healthcare landscape, many patients turn to online platforms for information about their diagnoses and treatment options. This study assessed 14 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) websites for their understandability and actionability using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Fourteen patient-facing US AML websites were searched in Google, selected, and analyzed using the PEMAT criteria. PEMAT is an online resource used to evaluate print materials, with two sections: understandability and actionability. Websites were rated by two independent reviewers, and discrepancies were discussed. Websites were categorized by government, public/private companies, patient advocacy groups, professional societies, and cancer centers. The study analyzed 14 websites on AML education material. The mean "understandability" score was 86% (range 77%-100%); government scored the highest, and private/public companies scored the lowest. The mean "actionability" score was 63% (range 33%-100%); patient advocacy groups scored the highest, and cancer centers scored the lowest. Most of the AML websites analyzed were easy to understand but lacked material that prompted patients to take action regarding their care. These actions included writing down common questions to ask their physician and inquiring about resources (e.g., support groups, relevant clinical trials, and financial support). This study highlights an opportunity to enhance online patient education material by improving understandability through content summaries and visual aids and improving actionability by adding tools (e.g., planners, checklists) to help patients take control of their disease management, including comprehending treatment options, understanding disease etiology, and managing financial assistance.
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.