ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2026
Quality and readability of online penile-cancer information: a Cross-Sectional Web Study.
Article in International journal of impotence 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penile cancer is rare, and patients increasingly rely on the internet for health information. On April 1, 2025, we conducted a cross-sectional evaluation of the quality and readability of the top 100 Google search results; 71 websites were included in the analysis. Overall quality was fair, with a mean DISCERN score of 41.01 ± 13.67, and transparency was limited, with a mean Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark score of 1.69 ± 1.02. Readability was generally suboptimal: the mean Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score was 52.06 ± 12.05 (fairly difficult), and the Gunning Fog Index and Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) scores (8.48 ± 2.43 and 7.19 ± 2.02, respectively) indicated reading demands above the recommended sixth-grade level. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's post hoc tests showed significant differences in DISCERN scores across affiliations, with non-profit websites scoring higher than commercial websites. FRE also differed by affiliation (p = 0.016), although post hoc comparisons were not significant, and sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of these findings. Correlation analysis demonstrated a strong association between DISCERN and JAMA scores (r = 0.662; p < 0.001). These findings support improved disclosure of authorship and update dates and simplification of language for patient education.
Identifiers
42056491What 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.