ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Evaluation of Web-based Information on Phytotherapy for Cancer Patients: A Quality and Readability Analysis.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 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
Phytotherapy is widely used by cancer patients as a complementary and alternative medicine approach. With the increasing reliance on the internet for health-related information, concerns regarding the quality, reliability, and readability of online phytotherapy content have become more prominent. This study aimed to evaluate the readability and quality of web-based information on phytotherapy for cancer patients using validated assessment tools and to identify specific deficiencies in content quality. A descriptive cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the Google search engine with four predefined search terms related to phytotherapy and oncology. The first 50 websites for each term were screened, yielding 200 websites, of which 99 met the inclusion criteria. Websites were categorized by source type and visibility. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index, SMOG, and Coleman-Liau Index. Content quality was evaluated using the JAMA benchmark criteria and the DISCERN instrument, including item-level analysis. Non-parametric statistical tests were applied where appropriate. The median FKGL score was 9.3, indicating that most content required a high reading level. The median JAMA score was 4, while the median DISCERN score was 55, reflecting moderate but variable quality. Item-level analysis revealed that critical aspects such as treatment risks, benefits, uncertainties, and consequences of no treatment were frequently insufficiently addressed. Commercial websites demonstrated lower DISCERN scores compared with non-commercial sources. No significant differences were observed between first-page and subsequent search results. Online phytotherapy information for cancer patients is characterized by moderate quality, high readability demands, and important deficiencies in key domains necessary for informed decision-making. In the evolving landscape of AI-assisted health information retrieval, these limitations may have broader implications, highlighting the need for accurate, evidence-based, and accessible online resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42310182What 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.