ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2025
Quality of Japanese Cancer Websites by Type of Information Provider.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 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
Abstract
Online cancer information is a key health resource in Japan, particularly for older adults. However, the quality may vary depending on the source. This study aimed to evaluate Japanese-language cancer webpages across different sources in terms of understandability, actionability, readability, and credibility. We analyzed 100 webpages about five major cancers (breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, and gastric) retrieved via Google. Pages, classified as academic (n = 14), medical (n = 51), or corporate (n = 35), and assessed using PEMAT-P, jReadability, and JAMA Benchmark Criteria. Overall, 79 pages (79.0%) scored ≥ 70 in understandability, while only 5 pages (5.0%) reached this threshold in actionability. Corporate pages showed the highest proportion scoring ≥ 70 in understandability (n = 34, 97.1%), followed by academic (n = 14, 100.0%) and medical (n = 31, 60.8%) sources (p < 0.001). Readability was uniformly low, with 98 pages (98.0%) rated as somewhat to very difficult. Corporate sources also displayed significantly higher credibility scores than other sources (p < 0.001). Corporate websites demonstrated clearer structure and higher transparency of source attribution, potentially reflecting organizational standards. However, actionable content remained limited across all sources. These findings highlight a misalignment between user search needs and information design, underscoring the importance of structuring content not only for clarity and reliability, but also for supporting users in taking informed health actions. This has implications for digital cancer education targeting aging populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41430549What 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.