ArticleJournal of public health research2026
An infodemiological analysis of arabic online educational content on low back pain: Insights into quality and reliability.
Article in Journal of public health research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide and is highly prevalent in Arabic-speaking countries. Many patients seek health information online, but the quality and reliability of Arabic resources remain unclear. This study evaluated the quality, reliability, and readability of Arabic websites on LBP. Design and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on July 15, 2025, using the Arabic keyword "low back pain" in Google, Yahoo, and Bing. The first 100 results per engine were screened in incognito mode. Eligible websites were Arabic, publicly accessible, and patient oriented. After exclusions, 95 websites were included. Websites were classified by affiliation and assessed using the DISCERN instrument (quality), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks (reliability), and automated readability indices (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, SMOG). Results: Of 300 screened websites, 95 met inclusion criteria. Health portals and educational sites comprised 46.3%. Overall quality was moderate (mean DISCERN 45.9 ± 11.5), with 82.1% rated as moderate and only 4.2% as good. Reliability was low (mean JAMA 2.46 ± 1.1); only 20% met all four benchmarks. Authorship and currency were present in 36.8% and 26.3% of sites. Readability was high, with 96.8% achieving FRE ≥ 80. Top-ranked websites showed higher quality and reliability ( Conclusions: Arabic websites on LBP are generally easy to read but often lack transparency, reliability, and evidence-based content. Strengthening online Arabic health resources through standardized quality frameworks is crucial to reduce misinformation and support informed decision-making.
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.