ArticleActa ortopedica brasileira2026
ARE POSTS ABOUT TRIGGER FINGER ON THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Article in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 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
Introduction: Trigger finger (stenosing tenosynovitis of the flexors) is a common hand condition, causing pain and functional limitation. With the increasing use of social media as a source of information, especially Instagram, it becomes necessary to evaluate the quality and reliability of content related to the topic made available to the public. Objective: To evaluate the quality and reliability of information about trigger finger published on Instagram, using the validated instruments modified DISCERN and Global Quality Score (GQS). Methods: Observational, cross-sectional study based on the analysis of the hashtags #triggerfinger and #stenosingtenosynovitis. 118 eligible posts were analyzed. Two independent evaluators (orthopedic residents in hand surgery) classified the content. Results: There was excellent inter-rater agreement, and a positive correlation was observed between longer content duration and better quality. There was a significant difference between professionals: hand surgeons presented higher quality scores. Conclusion: The quality of the information is very low to moderate. Content produced by hand surgeons presents greater technical rigor, and the Reels format offers better informational quality.
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.