ArticleJSAMS plus2023
"My knee is cracking" - What information is available on the internet about it? A systematic appraisal of the credibility, readability and accuracy of online information about knee crepitus.
Article in JSAMS plus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unhelpful Information About Low Back and Neck Pain on Physiotherapist's Websites.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
- 2023 Recap and Future Directions.JSAMS plus · 2023Article
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
Objectives: To summarise and systematically appraise the credibility, readability, and accuracy of the online information about knee crepitus. Design: Systematic appraisal of online information. Method: The top 20 URLs of two search engines (Google and Bing) for the following terms were screened for eligibility 'knee crepitus', 'knee sound', and 'knee crackling' (N = 120 websites). Two reviewers assessed the websites for credibility (JAMA benchmark) and readability (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests). For accuracy, we performed a qualitative analysis creating thematic units based on the website's content and explored whether they were supported by evidence. Results: Fifty-one websites were included. There was a large variation in the overall credibility of websites, with more than half of the websites lacking credible information. The median Flesch reading ease was 62 (range = 42-88) and Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 8 (range = 3-12). Six key thematic units emerged from our qualitative analysis all with sub-themes within them. The main topics covered by websites were: (i) What is knee crepitus? (ii) Is knee crepitus a problem? (iii) What is the cause of knee crepitus? (iv) How to manage knee crepitus? (v) What are the health consequences of having knee crepitus? (vi) Who should I seek if I have knee crepitus? Conclusion: Patients and clinicians should take caution when seeking web-based information about knee crepitus. Websites about knee crepitus lack credibility, present a large variation in readability outcomes, and there was no research evidence available to support most of their information.
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.