These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
221 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31162870)
1. Online information on dysmenorrhoea: An evaluation of readability, credibility, quality and usability. Lovett J; Gordon C; Patton S; Chen CX J Clin Nurs; 2019 Oct; 28(19-20):3590-3598. PubMed ID: 31162870 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Googling endometriosis: a systematic review of information available on the Internet. Hirsch M; Aggarwal S; Barker C; Davis CJ; Duffy JMN Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 May; 216(5):451-458.e1. PubMed ID: 27840143 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Readability of web-based sources about induced abortion: a cross-sectional study. Georgsson S; Carlsson T BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2020 Jun; 20(1):102. PubMed ID: 32503524 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The quality, understandability, readability, and popularity of online educational materials for heart murmur. Arslan D; Sami Tutar M; Kozanhan B; Bagci Z Cardiol Young; 2020 Mar; 30(3):328-336. PubMed ID: 31875800 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Online nutrition information for pregnant women: a content analysis. Storr T; Maher J; Swanepoel E Matern Child Nutr; 2017 Apr; 13(2):. PubMed ID: 27353248 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluating the Quality and Readability of Internet Information on Meningiomas. Saeed F; Anderson I World Neurosurg; 2017 Jan; 97():312-316. PubMed ID: 27742505 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Credibility, readability and content analysis of treatment recommendations for adolescents with nonspecific back pain published on consumer websites. Hauber SD; Robinson K; Fechner R; Pate JW; O'Sullivan K Eur J Pain; 2024 Oct; 28(9):1571-1584. PubMed ID: 38752319 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the Internet. O'Neill SC; Baker JF; Fitzgerald C; Fleming C; Rowan F; Byrne D; Synnott K Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 May; 39(10):E645-9. PubMed ID: 24583736 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Consulting Dr. Google: Quality of Online Resources About Tympanostomy Tube Placement. Harris VC; Links AR; Hong P; Walsh J; Schoo DP; Tunkel DE; Stewart CM; Boss EF Laryngoscope; 2018 Feb; 128(2):496-501. PubMed ID: 28842989 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Water fluoridation and the quality of information available online. Frangos Z; Steffens M; Leask J Int Dent J; 2018 Aug; 68(4):253-261. PubMed ID: 29441567 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. A systematic review of internet-based information for individuals with Raynaud's phenomenon and patients with systemic sclerosis. Devgire V; Martin AF; McKenzie L; Sandler RD; Hughes M Clin Rheumatol; 2020 Aug; 39(8):2363-2367. PubMed ID: 32152916 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. An evaluation of the quality of online information on emergency contraception. Agrawal S; Irwin C; Dhillon-Smith RK Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care; 2021 Aug; 26(4):343-348. PubMed ID: 33688778 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluating Quality, Credibility, and Readability of Online Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Information. Shah V; Lava CX; Hakimi AA; Hoa M Laryngoscope; 2024 Jul; 134(7):3302-3309. PubMed ID: 38280186 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Quality and Readability Assessment of Websites on Human Papillomavirus and Oropharyngeal Cancer. Schwarzbach HL; Mady LJ; Kaffenberger TM; Duvvuri U; Jabbour N Laryngoscope; 2021 Jan; 131(1):87-94. PubMed ID: 32282087 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Varicocele Embolization: An Assessment of the Quality and Readability of Online Patient Information. Alderson JH; O'Neil DC; Redmond CE; Mulholland D; Lee MJ Acad Radiol; 2020 Jun; 27(6):841-846. PubMed ID: 31494004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Assessment of quality and readability of internet-based health information related to commonly prescribed angiotensin receptor blockers. Oloidi A; Nduaguba SO; Obamiro K Pan Afr Med J; 2020; 35():70. PubMed ID: 32537073 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]