Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsProspective StudyPubMedOpen access

The quality and accuracy of direct-to-consumer biologic marketing for shoulder pathology are poor.

Sridharan M., Ulrich M., Thacher R., Swinehart S., Baria MR., Jones GL.

Prospective Study on Shoulder, Hip, published in JSES Int (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Prospective Study
Journal
JSES Int (2022)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
35572419
PMCID
PMC9091716
DOI
10.1016/j.jseint.2021.12.013
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

Background The growing role of biologic therapies as adjunct or standalone procedures in orthopedic practice has led to greater levels of direct-to-consumer biologic marketing. The present study aims to assess the quality, accuracy, and readability of online educational resources available to patients regarding biologic therapies for shoulder pathology. Methods Eight search terms relevant to shoulder biologic therapies (shoulder + BMAC, Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate, PRP, Platelet Rich Plasma, Lipogems, Adipose Tissue, Biologic therapy, and Stem cell therapy) were searched across three separate search engines. The first 25 websites of each search were recorded. Duplicate websites and those not specific to shoulder pathology were excluded. Three evaluators independently assessed quality using an author-derived scoring rubric for a total of 25 possible points and accuracy for a total of 12 possible points. The Flesch-Kincaid readability test was used to quantify reading levels. Websites were further characterized by authorship and the presence of commercial bias. Results Of the 600 results from the initial search, 59 met inclusion criteria. The mean quality of the websites was poor, with 7.97 ± 2.3 of 25 points (32%). The mean accuracy was low, with 8.47 ± 1.52 of 12 points (71%). The average reading level was 11.2 ± 1.93, with 32% of websites' reading at greater than 12 th gr

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research