Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText.
Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>
A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences
Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

suck abstract from ncbi


10.1080/13625187.2021.1887476

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1080/13625187.2021.1887476
suck pdf from google scholar
33688778!ä!33688778

suck abstract from ncbi


Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534

Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
pmid33688778      Eur+J+Contracept+Reprod+Health+Care 2021 ; 26 (4): 343-348
Nephropedia Template TP

gab.com Text

Twit Text FOAVip

Twit Text #

English Wikipedia


  • An evaluation of the quality of online information on emergency contraception #MMPMID33688778
  • Agrawal S; Irwin C; Dhillon-Smith RK
  • Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2021[Aug]; 26 (4): 343-348 PMID33688778show ga
  • OBJECTIVES: The increasing availability of health information online combined with reduced access to health care providers due to the coronavirus pandemic means that more people are using the internet for health information. However, with no standardised regulation of the internet, the population is vulnerable to misinformation regarding important health information. This review aimed to evaluate the quality and readability of the online information available on emergency contraception (EC) options. STUDY DESIGN: In this descriptive study, a Google search was performed using the term 'emergency contraception options' on 13 April 2020 yielding 232 results. Seventy-one results were excluded (34 inaccessible, 37 contained no medical information). The remaining 161 results were categorised by typology and assessed for credibility (JAMA criteria and HONcode), reliability (DISCERN tool) and readability (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook). RESULTS: Of all webpages evaluated, the most common typology was governmental. Credibility of web pages was poor (average JAMA score of 1.47 out of 4). Only 10.6% of webpages were HONcode certified. The most common DISCERN category was Fair (29.81%), closely followed by Poor (27.95%) reliability. On average, readability levels were above the recommended grade level for health information. The intrauterine device was discussed least frequently (86.96%) of all the EC options. CONCLUSION: Online information was of low credibility, reliability and written above the recommended reading level. Clinicians should be aware of the poor quality of online information on EC options, and actively educate patients on what makes a source credible.
  • |*Consumer Health Information/methods/standards[MESH]
  • |COVID-19/epidemiology/prevention & control/psychology[MESH]
  • |Contraception, Postcoital/*methods[MESH]
  • |Data Accuracy[MESH]
  • |Humans[MESH]
  • |Online Systems/*standards[MESH]
  • |Reproductive Health/*standards[MESH]


  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    Linkout box