SynthesisAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2026
Online information on bowel resection for Crohn's disease.
Synthesis in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMost patients with Crohn's disease (CD) have at least one bowel resection during their lifetime. Patients considering surgery will probably look for information online, as is common practice among patients with chronic illnesses. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the quality and readability of web-based patient information on bowel resection for CD.
methodsGoogle was searched using predefined search terms, developed with input from patient experts. For each term, results from the first two pages were screened for eligibility. Patient-focused websites on bowel resection for CD were included. The quality of the information was assessed using the DISCERN tool, and the readability with the Flesch-Kincaid ease of readability (FK) score. The accessibility adjustments of websites were also assessed.
resultsOf the 118 sources identified, 91 were excluded and 27 sources were analysed. One-third (
conclusionsThe study findings highlighted the limitations of the current online patient information surrounding bowel resection in CD. The involvement of patients, working alongside professional bodies and clinicians, in the development of health-related websites is recommended.
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.