ArticleCureus2026
The Challenge of Understanding Gilmore's Groin: An Analysis of Online Patient Resources.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to assess the quality and readability of online information available to patients on Google regarding Gilmore's groin. Methods This descriptive cross-sectional study evaluated webpages identified through Google searches using the terms "sports hernia", "athletic pubalgia", "Gilmore's groin", "sportsman's hernia", and "hockey hernia". The first page of results for each search term was screened. Duplicate links, non-functioning pages, and irrelevant results were excluded. Unique webpages meeting the eligibility criteria were analysed. Readability was assessed using the Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score. Each webpage was further evaluated for source type, intended audience, presence of relevant media, inclusion of key clinical information, and quality using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the findings. Results A total of 26 unique webpages were included. Hospital or clinic websites accounted for 13 (50%) webpages, and 16 (62%) were primarily directed toward patients. Relevant images were present in 11 (42%) webpages and relevant videos in three (11.5%). Information on cause and symptoms was provided in 26 (100%) webpages, investigations in 22 (85%), treatment in 25 (96%), and prognosis in 15 (58%). With respect to JAMA benchmarks, authorship was reported in 16 (61.5%) webpages, attribution in 13 (50%), disclosure in 21 (81%), and currency in 17 (65%). Mean readability scores were 11.5 for GFI, 9.9 for FKGL, and 43.5 for FRE, indicating that the material was generally written above the recommended reading level for patient education resources. Conclusion Online patient information on Gilmore's groin is widely available but is typically written at a reading level that is too advanced for the general public. Improving readability while maintaining accuracy may enhance patient understanding, support shared decision-making, and improve access to health information.
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.