English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To assess content, readability, and accountability of online information for patients regarding epiretinal membranes (ERMs). Cross-sectional study evaluating nine major medical websites on ERMs. Fifteen questions assessed patient-relevant content. Four indices estimated U.S. grade literacy level of the text.  JAMA  benchmarks (authorship, attribution, disclosure, currency) evaluated website accountability. Average content score was 36.78 (SD 13.91, 95% CI ±0.64) from a possible maximum of 60, with significant variability between websites (H = 22.68,  p =0.004). Mean reading grade level was 12.29 (SD 2.30, 95% CI ±1.50). No website achieved all JAMA benchmarks; only one website fulfilled three of the four. Content score did not correlate with Google rank (order of listed websites,  r  = −0.23,  p =0.55) or  JAMA  benchmarks ( r  = 0.19,  p =0.62) but significantly correlated with mean reading grade ( r  = 0.67,  p =0.05). Online information regarding ERMs varies significantly, may not adequately answer common patient questions, and is written at too complex a literacy level for the average patient.

Content, Readability, and Accountability of Freely Available Online Information for Patients Regarding Epiretinal Membranes