139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35139065)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
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. 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]
8. Analysis of Readability, Quality, and Content of Online Information Available for "Stem Cell" Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis.
Ng MK; Mont MA; Piuzzi NS
J Arthroplasty; 2020 Mar; 35(3):647-651.e2. PubMed ID: 31678019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Websites or Videos: Which Offer Better Information for Patients? A Comparative Analysis of the Quality of YouTube Videos and Websites for Cosmetic Injectables.
Patel AA; Mulvihill L; Jin A; Patel A; Galiano RD
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2022 Mar; 149(3):596-606. PubMed ID: 35006207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Assessment of readability, quality and popularity of online information on ureteral stents.
Mozafarpour S; Norris B; Borin J; Eisner BH
World J Urol; 2018 Jun; 36(6):985-992. PubMed ID: 29435639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Evaluating the readability, understandability, and quality of online materials about chest pain in children.
Arslan D; Tutar MS; Kozanhan B
Eur J Pediatr; 2020 Dec; 179(12):1881-1891. PubMed ID: 32894353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on periodontal disease.
Al-Ak'hali MS; Fageeh HN; Halboub E; Alhajj MN; Ariffin Z
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2021 Feb; 21(1):41. PubMed ID: 33541345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An evaluation of the readability, quality, and accuracy of online health information regarding the treatment of hypospadias.
Cisu TI; Mingin GC; Baskin LS
J Pediatr Urol; 2019 Feb; 15(1):40.e1-40.e6. PubMed ID: 30449679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Osteotomy around the knee: Assessment of quality, content and readability of online information.
Broderick JM; McCarthy A; Hogan N
Knee; 2021 Jan; 28():139-150. PubMed ID: 33360380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Quality and readability of online patient information on the left ventricular assist device.
Rouhi AD; Han JJ; Ghanem YK; Pervaiz SS; Suarez-Pierre A; Choudhury RA; Bermudez CA; Williams NN; Dumon KR
Artif Organs; 2023 Jun; 47(6):1029-1037. PubMed ID: 36478254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluation of the quality and readability of online information about breast cancer in China.
Li Y; Zhou X; Zhou Y; Mao F; Shen S; Lin Y; Zhang X; Chang TH; Sun Q
Patient Educ Couns; 2021 Apr; 104(4):858-864. PubMed ID: 32988687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
