ArticleInterventional pain medicine2025
Assessing the availability, readability, and content of online patient Education materials for cancer pain interventions: A cross-sectional analysis of major cancer center websites.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2025. 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.
- Assessing the educational quality of YouTube videos on celiac plexus blocks: Expert review and AI-based evaluation.Interventional pain medicine · 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
Background: As cancer survival improves, chronic cancer-related pain is an increasing clinical concern. Interventional procedures offer targeted, opioid-sparing pain relief, yet the quality and readability of online educational materials about these options remain poorly understood. Objective: To evaluate the availability, quality, and readability of online educational resources on interventional cancer pain management available from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 65 NCI-designated clinical cancer center websites to identify patient-facing content discussing interventional cancer pain procedures. Eligible materials were evaluated for quality using the DISCERN instrument and for readability using seven validated metrics. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Statistical comparisons were performed using t-tests. Results: Only 20 of 65 cancer center websites (31%) contained relevant educational materials. Sixty qualifying texts were identified: 28 full articles and 32 substantial mentions (≥50 words). The mean DISCERN score was 37 ± 9, indicating poor quality. Articles scored significantly higher than substantial mentions (mean difference 9.4 points, p < 0.001). The ICC for DISCERN scores was 0.872 (p < 0.001), reflecting good inter-rater agreement. Readability analysis revealed an average reading level equivalent to the 11th grade across all metrics, significantly higher than the NIH-recommended 8th-grade level (p < 0.001). Substantial mentions were significantly more difficult to read than articles (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Online materials on cancer pain interventions are generally scarce, low in quality, and written above nationally recommended reading levels. These findings highlight the need for cancer centers to improve online education materials using plain language and health literacy tools to better support informed decision-making.
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.