| Title |
Prostate Cancer on the Web—Expedient Tool for Patients’ Decision-Making?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Education, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13187-015-0891-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hendrik Borgmann, Jan-Henning Wölm, Stefan Vallo, Rene Mager, Johannes Huber, Johannes Breyer, Johannes Salem, Stacy Loeb, Axel Haferkamp, Igor Tsaur |
| Abstract |
Many patients diagnosed with cancer search for health information on the Web. We aimed to assess the quality and reliability of online health information on prostate cancer. Google, Yahoo, and Bing were searched for the term "prostate cancer." After selecting the most frequented websites, quality was measured by DISCERN score, JAMA benchmark criteria, and presence of HONcode certification. Popularity was assessed by Alexa tool, while accessibility, usability, and reliability were investigated by LIDA tool. Readability was analyzed by Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level and Automated Readability Index. All 13 selected websites were rated as being of high quality according to the DISCERN instrument (76.5 ± 2.6 out of 80 points). JAMA benchmark criteria were fulfilled by 87 % of websites, whereas only 37 % were certified by the HONcode. Median Alexa Traffic Rank was 2718 ranging from 7 to 679,038. Websites received 2.3 ± 0.5 daily pageviews per visitor and users spent an average of 2 min 58 s ± 39 sec on the website. Accessibility (92 ± 5 %) and usability (92 ± 3 %) scores were high and reliability (88 ± 8 %) moderate according to the LIDA tool. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 7.9 ± 2.2, and Automated Readability Index was 7.5 ± 2.4, rating the websites as fairly difficult to read. In conclusion, quality, accessibility, and usability of websites on prostate cancer provided a high rating in the current analysis. These findings are encouraging in view of the growing frequency of patients' access of health information online. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 22% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,692,181
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#558
of 1,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,409
of 264,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,133 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.