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.

10.1111/bju.15667 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1111/bju.15667 34865287!ä!34865287 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       BJU+Int 2022 ; 129 (3): 409-417 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=34865287|t=2022. Online urological educational material for medical students: can search engines be trusted?|pdf=|usr=}}{{34865287}} gab.com Text Online urological educational material for medical students: can search engines be trusted JO: BJU Int http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34865287 #FOAvip OBJECTIVES: To determine the credibility of online urological information that medical students are likely to encounter, determine possible discrepancies between the credibility of information pertaining to different areas within urology (especially those less relevant to patients), and assess trends in the sponsorship of online urological educational material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Health on the Net (HON) principles were used as a validated benchmark to assess the reliability of websites that appeared in the first 150 results of a search using the Google search engine. A variety of urological search terms were used, grouped into three broad categories with varying relevance to patients and medical students. Further analysis focussed on the sponsorship of assessed websites. RESULTS: A total of 5400 websites were assessed for validation over a set of 36 search terms. Only 843/5400 (15.6%) of these were HONcode accredited, indicating a large proportion of unverified and potentially unreliable information. Search engine rankings usually favoured accredited websites (P = 0.009), and accreditation peaked at 51.1% (184/360) in the first page of results, but sorting became weaker outside the highest search results. The percentage of accredited websites varied significantly between different subcategories of search terms such as conditions (18.3% [329/1800], P = 0.003) and procedures (13.5% [243/1800], P = 0.043). Governmental/educational and commercial sources supported the majority of websites assessed for sponsorship (21% [31/150] and 33% [49/150], respectively), and the former were more likely to rank highly in search results. CONCLUSION: Online urological information frequently lacks validation and is often of indeterminate credibility. There is a marked decrease in the proportion of accredited websites beyond the highest-ranked results and when considering search categories more relevant to students and less relevant to patients. Students cannot necessarily rely on free online sources for accurate information and could benefit from the development of more rigorous novel tools and platforms. Twit Text FOAVip Online urological educational material for medical students: can search engines be trusted ????BJU Int http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34865287 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34865287 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|34865287}}</ref> Online urological educational material for medical students: can search engines be trusted? #MMPMID34865287 Gunasegaram J; Ong S; Swann R; Lawrentschuk N BJU Int 2022[Mar]; 129 (3): 409-417 PMID34865287show ga OBJECTIVES: To determine the credibility of online urological information that medical students are likely to encounter, determine possible discrepancies between the credibility of information pertaining to different areas within urology (especially those less relevant to patients), and assess trends in the sponsorship of online urological educational material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Health on the Net (HON) principles were used as a validated benchmark to assess the reliability of websites that appeared in the first 150 results of a search using the Google search engine. A variety of urological search terms were used, grouped into three broad categories with varying relevance to patients and medical students. Further analysis focussed on the sponsorship of assessed websites. RESULTS: A total of 5400 websites were assessed for validation over a set of 36 search terms. Only 843/5400 (15.6%) of these were HONcode accredited, indicating a large proportion of unverified and potentially unreliable information. Search engine rankings usually favoured accredited websites (P = 0.009), and accreditation peaked at 51.1% (184/360) in the first page of results, but sorting became weaker outside the highest search results. The percentage of accredited websites varied significantly between different subcategories of search terms such as conditions (18.3% [329/1800], P = 0.003) and procedures (13.5% [243/1800], P = 0.043). Governmental/educational and commercial sources supported the majority of websites assessed for sponsorship (21% [31/150] and 33% [49/150], respectively), and the former were more likely to rank highly in search results. CONCLUSION: Online urological information frequently lacks validation and is often of indeterminate credibility. There is a marked decrease in the proportion of accredited websites beyond the highest-ranked results and when considering search categories more relevant to students and less relevant to patients. Students cannot necessarily rely on free online sources for accurate information and could benefit from the development of more rigorous novel tools and platforms. |*Search Engine[MESH] |*Students, Medical[MESH] |Benchmarking[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Internet[MESH]Online urological educational material for medical students: can searc(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing