ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Online patient education resources in bariatric surgery: a systematic evaluation of quality, readability, transparency, and representation.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe internet has become a central and increasingly influential source of health information for patients around the world. Patients commonly use the internet to seek information about specific treatments and to connect with others with similar health concerns. However, the quality, reliability, and integrity of online health information resources remain a concern as many websites often lack quality control, peer review, or compliance with up-to-date guidelines. We aimed to evaluate the quality and readability of online information regarding bariatric surgery.
methodsA web-based search using the terms "bariatric surgery" and "weight-loss surgery" was performed on the top search engines. A review was carried out on the first 10 results from each search engine and was evaluated using validated instruments such as JAMA Benchmarks, DISCERN, EQIP, Global Quality Scale, and standardized readability and visibility indices. Visual content and images representing bariatric surgery were also evaluated regarding their context and representation.
resultsSeventeen bariatric surgery websites were included. Quality and integrity of the websites across validated instruments were inconsistent with a median JAMA score 1 [IQR: 0-3], and 29.4% meeting no transparency criteria. Critical patient-centered content domains were frequently underrepresented, such as risk reporting (5.9%), long-term outcomes (41.2%), financial considerations (11.8%), and shared decision-making support (58.8%). Readability of content was a common issue (median Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 12.0, [IQR:9.9-14.6]). Bariatric surgery-related visual content was mainly outcome-focused, and showed imbalances in gender and racial representation (71.4% female, and 83.0% lighter skin tones). More complex bariatric surgeries and non-surgical obesity treatments were inconsistently discussed (BPD/DS 41.2%, SADI-S 29.4%, medical therapy 23.5%).
conclusionDespite high visibility, popular web-based resources for bariatric surgery demonstrate major deficiencies in transparency, readability, and patient-centered content, and may hinder the informed consent and shared decision-making process highlighting the need for substantial improvement in the quality and integrity of bariatric surgery websites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42257967What 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.