ArticleRomanian journal of ophthalmology
Social media content analysis for nutraceuticals and glaucoma.
Article in Romanian journal of ophthalmology. 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
Aim: Google and various social media platforms have content on the therapeutic potential of nutritional supplements for glaucoma, but whether that information is evidence-based has not been analyzed. The current study explores such content for its quality. Methodology: Criteria of search used were "glaucoma" and "vitamins" or "nutraceuticals" or "nutritional supplements". The first 30 search results on Google for every keyword combination were determined. The top 30 video results on Facebook Watch and YouTube for each keyword combination were selected. The initial 30 posts from Reddit and the top 30 Images on Google Images related to the keyword combination were also examined. Results: Sixty-eight websites on Google, 75 Images from Google, 39 YouTube videos, 12 video results from Facebook Watch, and 19 posts from Reddit were identified and assessed for quality.The average Sandvik scores were 10.86 ± 2.6 (Google webpages), 10.08 ± 1.9 (YouTube videos), 10.62 ± 1.6 (Facebook Watch), and 10.26 ± 2.8 (Posts from Reddit). The average Risk Scores were 0.67 ± 0.9 (videos from YouTube), 0.49 ± 0.8 (webpages on Google), 0.33 ± 0.5 (videos from Facebook Watch), and 0.26 ± 0.5 (Reddit). The mean HON code scores were 5.15 ± 1.5 (YouTube), 6 ± 1.7 (Google webpages), 4.42 ± 1.1 (Facebook Watch), and 3.47 ± 1.8 (Reddit). Discussion: Many patients who seek information online do not consult their physicians to verify the accuracy of their search results. Thus, with this changing trend, video and online medical content analysis has attracted interest. Search engines and social media platforms may serve as adjuncts for patient counseling in current care models by providing an online educational community. Compared to non-healthcare professionals, the healthcare professionals' information regarding nutraceuticals/nutritional supplements in glaucoma is of higher quality. Most HCPs do not recommend the use of dietary supplements as a complementary treatment for glaucoma, either because of inconclusive/insufficient data or due to contrasting studies that contradict each other. However, literature is building up with each passing day, to support nutritional supplementation as an integrative IOP-independent strategy for glaucoma management. Conclusion: The information provided by healthcare professionals is superior to that offered by non-healthcare professionals. Most HCPs advise against the use of nutritional supplements as an adjunct therapy for glaucoma, either because of inconclusive data or due to contrasting studies that contradict each other.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.