scholarly journals Evaluation of the quality of information on the internet about 2019 coronavirus outbreak in relation to orthodontics

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 437-441
Author(s):  
Hatice Kübra Olkun ◽  
Refika Saliha Olkun
Keyword(s):  
The Internet ◽  
Quality Of Information

Review of the Quality of Information on Bipolar Disorder on the Internet

2009 ◽  
Vol 43 (10) ◽  
pp. 934-945 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caryl Barnes ◽  
Robin Harvey ◽  
Alex Wilde ◽  
Dusan Hadzi-Pavlovic ◽  
Kay Wilhelm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bipolar Disorder ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Quality Of Information

A COMPARISON OF PATIENT AND HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL VIEWS WHEN ASSESSING QUALITY OF INFORMATION ON PITUITARY ADENOMA AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 1217-1222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irena Druce ◽  
Chantal Williams ◽  
Carolyn Baggoo ◽  
Erin Keely ◽  
Janine Malcolm
Keyword(s):  
Pituitary Adenoma ◽  
Healthcare Professional ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Quality Of Information

What is the Quality of Information About Bariatric Surgery on the Internet?

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 1455-1459 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Makar ◽  
D. Quilliot ◽  
R. Zarnegar ◽  
T. Levan ◽  
A. Ayav ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Quality Of Information

What’s Nissen on the net? the quality of information regarding Nissen fundoplication on the internet

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ace St. John ◽  
Kendyl Carlisle ◽  
Mark Kligman ◽  
Stephen M. Kavic
Keyword(s):  
Nissen Fundoplication ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Quality Of Information

scholarly journals Analysis of the Patient Information Quality and Readability on Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) on the Internet

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Priyanka ◽  
Yousaf B. Hadi ◽  
G. J. Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Grade Level ◽  
Quality Analysis ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Quality Of Information ◽  
Website Quality ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
The Mean ◽  
11Th Grade

Objective. Patients are increasingly using the Internet to inform themselves of health-related topics and procedures, including EGD. We analyzed the quality of information and readability of websites after a search on 3 different search engines. Methods. We used an assessment tool for website quality analysis that we developed in addition to using validated instruments for website quality, Global Quality Score (GQS) and Health on Net (HON) certification. The readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level (FKG). 30 results of each search terms ‘EGD’ and ‘Upper Endoscopy’ from Google and 15 each from Bing and Yahoo were analyzed. A total of 45 websites were included from 100 URLs after removing duplicates, video links, and journal articles. Results. Only 3 websites were found to have good quality and comprehensive and authentic information. These websites were https://www.healthline.com, https://www.uptodate.com, and https://www.emedicine.medscape.com. There were additional 13 sites with moderate quality of information. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE) score was 46.92 (range 81.6-6.5). The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade level (FKG) was 11th grade, with a range of 6th grade to 12th grade and above making them difficult to read. Conclusions. Our study shows that there are quite a few websites with moderate quality content. We recommend 3 comprehensive and authentic websites out of 45 URLs analyzed for information on Internet for EGD. In addition, the readability of the websites was consistently at a higher level than recommended by AMA at 11th grade level. In addition, we identified 3 websites with moderate quality content written at 8th grade and below readability level. We feel that gastroenterologists can help their patients better understand this procedure by directing them to these comprehensive websites.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Source and Quality of Information on the Internet Between Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Australian Experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 232596711774188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian M. Devitt ◽  
Taylor Hartwig ◽  
Haydn Klemm ◽  
Filip T. Cosic ◽  
James Green ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterolateral Ligament ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Quality Of Information ◽  
Specific Content ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: The internet is a valuable tool, but concerns exist regarding the quality and accuracy of medical information available online. Purpose: To evaluate the source and quality of information on the internet relating to anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) compared with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: A questionnaire was administered to 50 ACLR patients in Australia to determine their use of the internet to research their operation and their familiarity with the anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee. The most common search terms were determined, and the first 70 websites returned by the 5 most popular search engines were used to assess the quality of information about ACLR and ALLR. Each site was categorized by type and was assessed for quality and validity using the DISCERN score, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and a novel specific content score for each procedure. The presence of the Health on the Net Code (HONcode) seal was also recorded. Results: The majority (84%) of ACLR patients used the internet to research their operation. The quality of information available for ALLR was significantly inferior to that for ACLR according to the DISCERN score (37.3 ± 3.4 vs 54.4 ± 4.6; P < .0001) and specific content score (5.3 ± 1.3 vs 11.0 ± 1.5; P < .0001). ACLR websites were predominantly physician produced, while the majority of ALLR websites were academic. In contrast to ACLR websites, the majority of ALLR websites did not provide information on the indication for treatment or potential complications. ALLR websites scored better on the JAMA benchmark criteria due to the predominance of academic websites. A greater proportion of ACLR websites (14.6%) versus ALLR websites (2.5%) provided an HONcode seal. Correlation was demonstrated between the DISCERN score and specific content scores for both ACLR and ALLR but not with JAMA benchmark criteria. The specific content score had high reliability for both ACLR and ALLR. Conclusion: The majority of patients undergoing ACLR in Australia used the internet to research the procedure. The quality of information on the internet relating to ALLR was significantly inferior to information about ACLR. Most ALLR websites failed to include crucial information about the indication or options for treatment, prognosis, and potential complications. Surgeons should be aware of the information to which their patients are exposed through the internet and should be proactive in directing patients to appropriate websites.

Evaluation of the Quality of Information on the Internet Available to Patients Undergoing Cervical Spine Surgery

2014 ◽  
Vol 82 (1-2) ◽  
pp. e31-e39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander G. Weil ◽  
Michel W. Bojanowski ◽  
Jacques Jamart ◽  
Thierry Gustin ◽  
Marc Lévêque
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Quality Of Information ◽  
Cervical Spine Surgery
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document