ArticleCureus2026
Investigating Health Disparities in Online Pediatric Skull Fracture Information: An Analysis of Resource Quality and Readability.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Families often seek medical information online; this study assesses the accessibility of online pediatric skull fracture materials by evaluating the quality and readability of easily obtained sources. Methods Six terms were queried using Google (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States), Bing (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States), and Yahoo (Yahoo Inc., New York City, New York, United States). Twenty-four unique websites were categorized as commercial, academic, or medical practice. Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), while quality was measured using Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST) and the DISCERN tool. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared readability and quality scores by authorship classification. Linear regression was performed for QUEST vs DISCERN scores and quality vs readability. Results Among 24 unique sites, 8 (33%) were commercial, 10 (42%) from academic institutions, and 6 (25%) from medical practices. Mean FRES and FKGL scores corresponded to an eighth-grade reading level. Mean DISCERN and QUEST scores were 48.8 ± 8.7 (Fair) and 15.0 ± 6.3 (Fair). ANOVA indicated no significant difference in readability scores by website type (p > 0.05). Linear regression revealed a significant correlation between QUEST and DISCERN scores (p = 0.011) but no significant correlation between readability and quality metrics (p = 0.31). Conclusions Online materials do not meet the American Medical Association's recommended sixth-grade level. Sites lacked proper source attribution and clear explanations of treatment options. QUEST and DISCERN both measure quality in comparable ways. Readability and quality were not significantly linked. Complex language, reflected in high readability scores, may hinder health literacy, especially among lower socioeconomic status populations. Efforts should focus on improving content quality while simplifying language to promote health equity.
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.