ArticleOral diseases2026
Patient-Centred Web-Based Information on Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Quality and Readability.
Article in Oral diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Reliable is eHealth information on dental care in head and neck cancer? A quality evaluation.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Accuracy and Health Information Quality in Oral Mucosal Diseases.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Patient-Centred Web-Based Information on Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Quality and Readability.Oral diseases · 2026Article
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
introductionThe internet is a widely used source of health information for patients with head and neck cancer. However, the quality and readability of online content remain inconsistent. This study evaluated the usefulness of web-based resources by assessing their quality and readability.
methodsSearches were conducted using Google, Bing, and Yahoo! with nine common anatomical terms related to head and neck cancer. The first 50 results from each search engine were screened, and eligible websites were evaluated for quality using the DISCERN instrument by three independent reviewers. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level (FKRGL) and the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied.
resultsA total of 285 websites met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 46% were rated as poor quality (DISCERN score = 1). The median FKRGL was 8.6, and the median FRES was 55.7, both indicating reading levels above recommended thresholds for patient education materials.
conclusionsOnline information for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is often of low quality and too complex for the average reader. Improved, accessible, and reliable web-based resources are needed to support patient understanding and informed healthcare decisions.
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.