ReviewJPRAS open2026
Quality and accessibility of online patient self-education resources for breast reconstruction.
Review in JPRAS open, 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
Background: With rising interest in breast reconstruction after mastectomy, patients are increasingly turning to online resources to supplement medical consultations. However, the quality and accessibility of these materials remain inconsistent. This study evaluates the readability, understandability, actionability, content coverage, and transparency of online breast reconstruction resources. Methods: The top 20 Google search results were examined for five common breast reconstruction-related queries. Metrics assessed included SMOG readability level, PEMAT scores (understandability and actionability), content coverage, and a modified EQIP score for quality. Statistical analyses examined relationships among these variables and with factors like search rank, author type, and query. Results: Mean content coverage was 49 %, with significant gaps in preoperative planning, treatment side effects, and fat grafting. Readability was poor (mean SMOG 12.3). Understandability was high (80 %), but actionability (37 %) and quality (modEQIP of 40 %) were low. Academic authors produced shorter and lower-quality resources. Higher-ranked resources were generally longer and correlated with better performance across most metrics. Specific queries like 'DIEP flap' yielded narrower, lower-quality resources. Conclusions: Online resources for breast reconstruction are highly variable and often fall short in readability, comprehensiveness, and transparency. Although understandability is generally acceptable, low actionability and inconsistent coverage hinder patient utility. Search engine rank modestly correlates with quality, suggesting some alignment between visibility and value. Improving these resources will require targeted efforts to simplify language, address topic gaps, and enhance actionable content-especially for specialized queries where quality remains lowest.
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.