ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2026
Quality and Readability of Online Information on Elbow Epicondylitis.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 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
Backgroud: Elbow epicondylitis (EEC) is a painful condition that affects the common flexor or extensor tendons of the elbow. This study aimed to evaluate the quality and readability of online information regarding EEC using several established methods. Methods: Websites were examined using the Google search engine on September 13, 2024, to identify the top 100 ranked websites using the following search terms: "lateral epicondylitis," "medial epicondylitis," "golfer's elbow," "tennis elbow," and "elbow pain." The inclusion criteria were accessible English-language websites containing health information related to the search terms. Among the retrieved websites, those that were inaccessible, duplicate, non-English, irrelevant, and registration- or subscription-based websites, as well as those limited to scientific articles or video clips, were excluded. The websites were categorized into 5 groups. The quality of each website was evaluated using Health on the Net Foundation (HON) grade scale, instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choice (DISCERN instrument), and Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) score. Additionally, website readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid reading ease (FRE) score, Flesch-Kincaid grade (FKG) level, Gunning-Fog index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) grade level, and Coleman-Liau index. Results: Of 500 websites, 201 were selected based on exclusion criteria. News portals and non-profit websites generally exhibited higher quality than other website types. Although 17 websites were considered high quality, none were rated as such according to the DISCERN instrument. On average, each type of website had an FKG level above 7.7, and the average FRE score was below 54 points, indicating a challenging reading level for the general audience. Conclusions: The quality of online information regarding EEC should be improved and made more accessible to the general public. Although the readability of this information remains inadequate, the results may indicate some improvement compared with those of previous studies. Given the high prevalence of EEC and the increasing use of web-based health information, further efforts could be made to enhance the readability and quality of online resources on EEC.
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.