ArticleClinical optometry2026
Design Characteristics, Content Quality, and Credibility Indicators of Online Infographics for Contact Lens Wearers.
Article in Clinical optometry, 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
Purpose: This study aimed to assess the design, scientific accuracy and clinical usefulness of freely available online infographics as educational tools addressed to contact lens wearers. Methods: A Google search was conducted to collect static non-interactive infographics related to contact lens wear and maintenance. A 25-item ad hoc non-validated rubric was employed by two assessors to evaluate eligible Google Images results, selected using a convenience-based stopping rule, in terms of overall description (5 items), scientific and clinical content (9 items) and design (11 items). Results: A sample of 200 infographics was included in the study. The main sources of the infographics were commercial (30.5%), unknown (26.0%) and healthcare center (22.5%). Most infographics lacked credibility indicators such as authorship, publication date or references. Median scientific accuracy and expert-rated clinical usefulness were 9.5 and 9 (on a 0-10 scale), with differences in both items depending on the source (p<0.001). Search engine order of appearance was weakly correlated with scientific accuracy (rho=-0.273, p<0.001) and clinical usefulness (rho=-0.369, p<0.001). Overall, graphic design choices such as use of color, typography and layout were adequate. Information saturation was not correlated with scientific accuracy (rho=0.157, p=0.026). Conclusion: This study evaluated existing online infographics. Overall, graphic design choices, scientific accuracy and clinical usefulness were adequate, although areas for improvement were detected in the availability of credibility indicators, such as the lack of authorship and publication details, insufficient supporting references, and use of technical jargon. Further research should explore the actual effectiveness of infographics among contact lens wearers.
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.