497 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27812680)
1. Critical Analysis of the Quality, Readability, and Technical Aspects of Online Information Provided for Neck-Lifts.
Rayess H; Zuliani GF; Gupta A; Svider PF; Folbe AJ; Eloy JA; Carron MA
JAMA Facial Plast Surg; 2017 Mar; 19(2):115-120. PubMed ID: 27812680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessment of the quality and variability of health information on chronic pain websites using the DISCERN instrument.
Kaicker J; Borg Debono V; Dang W; Buckley N; Thabane L
BMC Med; 2010 Oct; 8():59. PubMed ID: 20939875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Quality, Reliability, and Readability of Online Information on Rhinoplasty.
Ahsanuddin S; Cadwell JB; Povolotskiy R; Paskhover B
J Craniofac Surg; 2021 Sep; 32(6):2019-2023. PubMed ID: 33534323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessment of Online Sites Reliability, Accountability, Readability, Accessibility, and Translation for Intravitreal Injections.
Rayess N; Li AS; Do DV; Rahimy E
Ophthalmol Retina; 2020 Dec; 4(12):1188-1195. PubMed ID: 32497854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Quality, Reliability, Technical Quality, and Readability of Google Online Information on Childhood Glaucoma.
Elhusseiny AM; Hassan AK; Hassan MA; Eleiwa TK; Ali HT; Abdelnaem S; Chauhan MZ; Shaikh O; Khouri AS; Sallam AB
J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus; 2024; 61(3):198-203. PubMed ID: 38112390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Quality, Readability, and Technical Quality of Online Information on Glaucoma.
Shah R; Mahajan J; Oydanich M; Khouri AS
Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2023; 6(1):93-99. PubMed ID: 35940574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluating the Quality, Content, and Readability of Online Resources for Failed Back Spinal Surgery.
Guo WJ; Wang WK; Xu D; Qiao Z; Shi YL; Luo P
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2019 Apr; 44(7):494-502. PubMed ID: 30234809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Assessing the Accuracy and Readability of Online Health Information for Patients With Pancreatic Cancer.
Storino A; Castillo-Angeles M; Watkins AA; Vargas C; Mancias JD; Bullock A; Demirjian A; Moser AJ; Kent TS
JAMA Surg; 2016 Sep; 151(9):831-7. PubMed ID: 27144966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Do Websites Serve Our Patients Well? A Comparative Analysis of Online Information on Cosmetic Injectables.
Patel AA; Joshi C; Varghese J; Hassan AM; Janis JE; Galiano RD
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2022 Apr; 149(4):655e-668e. PubMed ID: 35139065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Internet-Based Resources Frequently Provide Inaccurate and Out-of-Date Recommendations on Preoperative Fasting: A Systematic Review.
Roughead T; Sewell D; Ryerson CJ; Fisher JH; Flexman AM
Anesth Analg; 2016 Dec; 123(6):1463-1468. PubMed ID: 27644057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluating the quality and readability of Internet information sources regarding the treatment of swallowing disorders.
O'Connell Ferster AP; Hu A
Ear Nose Throat J; 2017 Mar; 96(3):128-138. PubMed ID: 28346643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Separating the Wheat From the Chaff: An Evaluation of Readability, Quality, and Accuracy of Online Health Information for Treatment of Peyronie Disease.
Bompastore NJ; Cisu T; Holoch P
Urology; 2018 Aug; 118():59-64. PubMed ID: 29723588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Internet Websites for Chest Pain Symptoms Demonstrate Highly Variable Content and Quality.
Joury AU; Alshathri M; Alkhunaizi M; Jaleesah N; Pines JM
Acad Emerg Med; 2016 Oct; 23(10):1146-1152. PubMed ID: 27341392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cross sectional analysis of scoliosis-specific information on the internet: potential for patient confusion and misinformation.
Truumees D; Duncan A; Mayer EK; Geck M; Singh D; Truumees E
Spine Deform; 2020 Dec; 8(6):1159-1167. PubMed ID: 32578159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Critical analysis of the quality of internet resources for patients with varicose veins.
Yan Q; Field AR; Jensen KJ; Goei C; Jiang Z; Davies MG
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord; 2021 Jul; 9(4):1017-1024.e7. PubMed ID: 33340728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Accuracy and Readability of Websites on Kidney and Bladder Cancers.
Azer SA; Alghofaili MM; Alsultan RM; Alrumaih NS
J Cancer Educ; 2018 Aug; 33(4):926-944. PubMed ID: 28281091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. IVC filter - assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the Internet.
Ko TK; Yun Tan DJ; Hadeed S
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord; 2024 Mar; 12(2):101695. PubMed ID: 37898304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Inflammatory bowel disease: An evaluation of health information on the internet.
Azer SA; AlOlayan TI; AlGhamdi MA; AlSanea MA
World J Gastroenterol; 2017 Mar; 23(9):1676-1696. PubMed ID: 28321169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure: an assessment of the quality and readability of online information.
Lim SJM; Kelly M; Selvarajah L; Murray M; Scanlon T
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2021 May; 21(1):149. PubMed ID: 33952225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Analysis of the Patient Information Quality and Readability on Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) on the Internet.
Priyanka P; Hadi YB; Reynolds GJ
Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2018; 2018():2849390. PubMed ID: 30510923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
