ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Evaluating the quality of online patient education materials for gastric adenocarcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gastric adenocarcinoma, or gastric cancer, typically has a poor prognosis. The objective of this study was to assess the quality, understandability, actionability, and comprehensiveness of online resources for patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma, or gastric cancer as patients increasingly rely on online health information. Methods: A systematic search using the term "stomach cancer" was conducted across three search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing) on three different browsers (Safari, Google Chrome, and Microsoft Edge) on 12/13/2024, with the top fifty websites recorded for each combination. Duplicates were removed and inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied. Quality was evaluated using the DISCERN instrument. The PEMAT-P was used to evaluate understandability and actionability. Readability was evaluated with the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease algorithm. Comprehensiveness was evaluated with author generated criteria based on national guidelines. Scores for each assessed metric were determined by two independent reviewers for each website and recorded, with any inter-reviewer discrepancies resolved by consensus. Statistical analysis was performed to compare results by website affiliation (academic, foundation or government) and search rank. Results: Thirty-seven websites evaluated ( Conclusions: While most online resources for gastric cancer provided understandable information, they lacked actionability, were written above recommended reading levels, and offered limited content on long-term management. These shortcomings reflect broader trends seen across other patient resources and highlight the need for more actionable, readable, and comprehensive online patient education materials.
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.