ArticleJournal of gambling studies2025
Online Information on Gambling Addiction: Is It Readable? Is It Reliable?
Article in Journal of gambling studies, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the readability and reliability of websites providing information about gambling. The study assessed 65 Turkish-language websites from Google. In this study, readability was assessed using the Ateşman Readability Index, which determines textual difficulty based on sentence and word length. Additionally, the reliability of the content was evaluated using the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark, which assesses the trustworthiness of online information through four key criteria: authorship, attribution, disclosure, and currency. Journal of the American Medical Association score was 1.23 ± 0.93, and 64.6% of websites were rated as having "insufficient information/low reliability. The average Ateşman score was 51.63 ± 12.51, corresponding to an 11th-12th grade reading level, which is considered moderately difficult for general population. Despite 81.5% of the sites originating from health organizations, both readability and reliability were found to be inadequate. These findings highlight the need for more accessible and trustworthy digital resources on gambling addiction. Collaboration among content creators, health professionals, and policymakers is recommended to improve the readability and reliability of online health information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40920299What 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.