| Title |
Testicular Cancer on the Web—an Appropriate Source of Patient Information in Concordance with the European Association of Urology Guidelines?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Education, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13187-017-1249-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pia Paffenholz, Johannes Salem, Hendrik Borgmann, Tim Nestler, David Pfister, Christian Ruf, Igor Tsaur, Axel Haferkamp, Axel Heidenreich |
| Abstract |
Despite the continuous growth of the internet, little is known about the quality of online information on testicular cancer, the most common solid malignancy in young men. In our study, we analysed the quality, readability and popularity of the most popular websites on testicular cancer. Therefore, we performed a web search for the term "testicular cancer" using www.google.com . Fifty-one websites were evaluated for HONcode quality certification, Alexa Popularity Rank and readability levels. Furthermore, the websites' content on eight major topics of the current European Association of Urology Guidelines on testicular cancer was assessed. Fourteen (28%) had a HONcode quality certificate and the mean Alexa Popularity Rank of all 51 websites was 54,040 (interquartile range 6648-282,797). Websites were difficult to read requiring 9 years of US school education to properly understand the information. The websites mentioned 80% of the guideline topics on average, revealing "prognosis" (59%) and "follow-up" (57%) as underrepresented subtopics. Furthermore, 12% of all topics were displayed incorrectly, particularly due to wrong information concerning "aetiology" (42%). Sixty percent of the topics were mentioned in an incomplete fashion, with less than half of the websites displaying complete information on "staging" (47%), "diagnostic evaluation" (49%) or "disease management" (45%). In general, online health information concerning testicular cancer is mentioned correctly on most websites. However, improvement regarding readability and completeness of the given information is needed. Nevertheless, highly selected websites on testicular cancer can serve as an appropriate source of patient information. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 22% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 27% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 12% |
| Psychology | 4 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2017.
All research outputs
#5,541,883
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#181
of 1,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,077
of 317,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#5
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,152 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.