ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Quality Assessment of Online Arabic Information on Head and Neck Cancer: An Infodemiological Study.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating ChatGPT's Effectiveness for Arabic Dry Mouth Patient Education.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
IntroductionLittle is known about the quality of Arabic health information available online, particularly regarding information on head and neck cancer. This study evaluated the quality of web-based Arabic information on head and neck cancer and its treatment.MethodsEleven Arabic keywords were used to search for the content using Google (Google.com). The quality of written material was assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)-P and four JAMA Quality Benchmarks (authorship, attributions, disclosure, and currency), whereas the quality of audiovisual (AV) material was assessed using the PEMAT-A/V tool.ResultsA total of 315 websites were analyzed, of which 17 and 298 contained AV and written materials, respectively. Among these, 198 sites were sourced from scientific outlets, such as Medscape, whereas 117 originated from layperson platforms, such as news articles and blogs. The mean PEMAT scores for understandability and actionability were 61% (± 16.03) and 17% (± 24.89), respectively. The average overall PEMAT score was as low as 49% (± 15.55). Additionally, the included websites did not meet the JAMA benchmarks, with an average overall rating of 1.11 (± 0.94) on a total score of 4. Of the websites, none achieved all benchmarks, and 23 achieved three (7%).ConclusionNotably poor-quality Arabic information on head and neck cancers online was observed, with questionable actionability, understandability, and veracity of sources for the presented information. Clinicians and healthcare policymakers should consider creating accessible, evidence-based, up-to-date web content on head and neck cancers tailored to patients' needs and wishes.
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.