ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025
Appraisal of online health information on intravenous iron: Are patients well-informed?
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Appraisal of international, patient-facing resources on heavy menstrual bleeding.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Appraisal of online health information on intravenous iron: Are patients well-informed?International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
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
This study aimed to evaluate the quality, content, and readability of top-listed websites on intravenous (IV) iron. We conducted online searches for the term "iron infusion" using Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The search term was determined based on Google Trends data for March 2025. Five gynecologists independently reviewed the websites using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and Abbott's Scale. Credibility and readability were further assessed using the Health on the Net (HON) Foundation Code of Conduct Certification, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Flesch-Kincaid Read Ease formula (FRES). A total of 25 websites were included. The mean DISCERN score was moderate (2.9 ± 0.9 out of 5), with only three websites (12%) providing excellent quality information. Seven (28%) websites were classified as having poor to very poor quality information. The mean JAMA score was low (2.1 ± 1.3 out of 4), and only three websites (12%) met all benchmarks. The overall content score on Abbott's scale was low (45.4 ± 16.1 out of 106). The average authorship score (2.1 ± 1.2 out of 3) and esthetics rating (5.4 ± 1.2 out of 10) were moderate. Notably, 21 (84%) websites were not certified by the HONcode. Readability levels were poor, as reflected by the FRES (38.1 ± 16.9 out of 100), the FKGL (equivalent grade, 12.4 ± 2.8), and the SMOG (equivalent grade, 12.7 ± 2.4). Although information on IV iron is widely available online, its overall quality and content are generally poor and not easily accessible to the public. This underscores the opportunity for knowledge translation efforts aimed at developing online resources that are both accurate and understandable.
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.