Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40762762›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026

Online Information on Lymphedema: Systematic Review of the Quality of Online Patient Resources.

Charlene Kok, Georgios Karamitros, Gregory A Lamaris, Huseyin Karagoz, Michael P Grant, Vimal Gokani

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Charlene KokMedical School, Imperial College, London, UK.
Georgios KaramitrosDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA. georgios.karamitros@vumc.org.ORCID 0000-0002-2208-8539
Gregory A LamarisDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Huseyin KaragozDepartment of Plastic Surgery, MedicalCenterNorth, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21 Avenue South, D-4216, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA.
Michael P GrantDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Vimal GokaniDepartment of Plastic Surgery, MedicalSchool, Imperial College, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Internet has become a major source of health-related information for patients, yet the quality of online content is unregulated, leading to the potential for misinformation and patient distress. This study aims to assess the quality of online patient information on lymphedema. A search for the term "lymphedema" was conducted on the three most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing), identifying the first 100 relevant websites, yielding 300 websites in total. These websites were evaluated using the expanded Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) instrument, which consists of 36 items. From 300 websites identified, 105 (35%) met the criteria for final analysis, after excluding duplicates, irrelevant sites, non-English content, sites requiring user accounts, and scientific publications targeting professionals. The median EQIP score of these sites was 22, indicating suboptimal quality based on the EQIP criteria. A significant number of sites (62.9%) did not mention surgical treatment as an option for lymphedema, and 75.2% failed to describe treatment risks. Additionally, 98.1% did not report quantitative risks. Our analysis using the EQIP tool revealed that the quality of online information about lymphedema is generally poor, largely due to the omission of key content elements such as treatment options, associated risks, and quantitative data.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationInternetLymphedemaPatient Education as TopicDigital MediaHumansInternetLymphedemaLymphedema surgeryPatient informationQualitySurgery

Identifiers

PMID40762762
PMCPMC13222276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.