ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Evaluation of the Quality of Delirium Website Content for Patient and Family Education: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. 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
backgroundPatients and families who have experienced delirium may seek information about delirium online, but the quality and reliability of online delirium-related websites are unknown.
objectiveThis study aimed to identify and evaluate online delirium-related websites that could be used for patient and family education.
methodsWe searched Microsoft Bing, Google, and Yahoo using the keywords "delirium" and the misspelled "delerium" to identify delirium-related websites created to inform patients, families, and members of the public about delirium. The quality of identified delirium-related website content was evaluated by 2 authors using the validated DISCERN tool and the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) benchmark criteria. Readability was assessed with the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, the Flesch Reading Ease score, and the Flesch Kincaid grade level. Each piece of website content was assessed for its delirium-related information using a checklist of items co-designed by a working group, which included patients, families, researchers, and clinicians.
resultsWe identified 106 websites targeted toward patients and families, with most hospital-affiliated (21/106, 20%) from commercial websites (20/106, 19%), government-affiliated organizations (19/106, 18%), or from a foundation or advocacy group (16/106, 15%). The median time since the last content update was 3 (IQR 2-5) years. Most websites' content (101/106, 95%) was written at a reading level higher than the recommended grade 6 level. The median DISCERN total score was 42 (IQR 33-50), with scores ranging from 20 (very poor quality) to 78 (excellent quality). The median delirium-related content score was 8 (IQR 6-9), with scores ranging from 1 to 12. Many websites lacked information on the short- and long-term outcomes of delirium as well as how common it is. The median JAMA benchmark score was 1 (IQR 1-3), indicating the quality of the websites' content had poor transparency.
conclusionsWe identified high-quality websites that could be used to educate patients, families, or the public about delirium. While most delirium-related website content generally meets quality standards based on DISCERN and JAMA benchmark criteria, high scores do not always ensure patient and family-friendliness. Many of the top-rated delirium content were text-heavy and complex in layout, which could be overwhelming for users seeking clear, concise information. Future efforts should prioritize the development of websites with patients and families, considering usability, accessibility, and cultural relevance to ensure they are truly effective for delirium education.
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.