ArticleClinics and practice2025
Quality of Online Information on Patient-Specific Knee Arthroplasty and Its Impact on Personalized Care.
Article in Clinics and practice, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-specific instrumentation (PSI) in total knee arthroplasty represents an increasingly relevant component of personalized surgical planning. As nearly half of orthopedic patients search online for medical information before or after clinical consultation, the quality, accuracy, and readability of publicly available digital resources directly influence patient expectations, shared decision-making, and rehabilitation engagement. This study assessed the content, quality, and readability of online information about PSI in TKA.
methodsGoogle searches using four predefined PSI-related terms were conducted on 6 March 2025. After applying exclusion criteria, 71 websites were included for evaluation. Websites were categorized as academic or non-academic and analyzed for authorship, reporting of advantages and disadvantages, inaccurate assertions, use of peer-reviewed references, multimedia content, and mention of specific PSI platforms. Website quality was assessed using validated quality evaluation tools (QUEST and JAMA criteria), and readability was evaluated using established readability indices (SMOG, FKGL, and FRE).
resultsAcademic websites demonstrated significantly higher quality than non-academic sources based on QUEST (25.4 vs. 9.8;
conclusionsOnline information about PSI in total knee arthroplasty varies widely in transparency and accuracy, with non-academic websites frequently omitting risks or presenting misleading claims. Given the role of individualized implant planning, accessible and evidence-based digital content is essential to support personalized patient education and shared decision-making. Because limited readability restricts patient comprehension and informed participation in personalized orthopedic care, improving the clarity and accessibility of digital patient resources is essential.
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.