Quality of Internet information related to the Mediterranean diet

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 885-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reiko Hirasawa ◽  
Kazumi Saito ◽  
Yoko Yachi ◽  
Yoko Ibe ◽  
Satoru Kodama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mediterranean Diet ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
English Language ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Internet Information ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Mediterranean

AbstractObjectiveThe present study aimed to evaluate the quality of Internet information on the Mediterranean diet and to determine the relationship between the quality of information and the website source.DesignWebsite sources were categorized as institutional, pharmaceutical, non-pharmaceutical commercial, charitable, support and alternative medicine. Content quality was evaluated using the DISCERN rating instrument, the Health On the Net Foundation's (HON) code principles, andJournal of the American Medical Association(JAMA) benchmarks. Readability was graded by the Flesch Reading Ease score and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level score.SettingThe phrase ‘Mediterranean diet’ was entered as a search term into the six most commonly used English-language search engines.SubjectsThe first thirty websites forthcoming by each engine were examined.ResultsOf the 180 websites identified, thirty-two met our inclusion criteria. Distribution of the website sources was: institutional,n8 (25 %); non-pharmaceutical commercial,n12 (38 %); and support,n12 (38 %). As evaluated by the DISCERN, thirty-one of the thirty-two websites were rated as fair to very poor. Non-pharmaceutical commercial sites scored significantly lower than institutional and support sites (P= 0·002). The mean Flesch Reading Ease score and mean Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level were 55·9 (fairly difficult) and 7·2, respectively. The Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level score determines the difficulty of material by measuring the length of words and sentences and converting the results into a grade level ranging from 0 to 12 (US grade level).ConclusionsDue to the poor quality of website information on the Mediterranean diet, patients or consumers who are interested in the Mediterranean diet should get advice from physicians or dietitians.

scholarly journals P126 An analysis of the quality and readability of online information for osteoarthritis

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran Murray ◽  
Timothy Murray ◽  
Candice Low ◽  
Anna O'Rourke ◽  
Douglas J Veale
Keyword(s):  
Grade Level ◽  
English Language ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
12Th Grade ◽  
8Th Grade ◽  
Ease Score

Abstract Background Osteoarthritis is the most common cause of disability in people over 65 years old. The readability of of online osteoarthritis information has never been assessed. A 2003 study found the quality of online osteoarthritis information to be poor. This study reviews the quality of online information regarding osteoarthritis in 2018 using three validated scoring systems. Readability is reviewed for the first time, again using three validated tools. Methods The term osteoarthritis was searched across the three most popular English language search engines. The first 25 pages from each search engine were analysed. Duplicate pages, websites featuring paid advertisements, inaccessible pages (behind a pay wall, not available for geographical reasons) and non-text pages were excluded. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Gunning-Fog Index (GFI). Website quality was scored using the the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and DISCERN criteria. Presence or absence of HONcode certification, age of content, content producer and author characteristics were noted. Results 37 unique websites were suitable for analysis. Readability varied by assessment tool from 8th to 12th grade level. This compares with the recommended 7- 8th grade level. One (2.7%) website met all four JAMA Criteria. Mean DISCERN quality of information for OA websites was “fair”, comparing favourably with the “poor” grading of a 2003 study. HONCode endorsed websites (43.2%) were of a statistically significantly higher quality. Conclusion Quality of online health information for OA is “fair”. 2.7% of websites met JAMA benchmark criteria for quality. Readability was equal to or more difficult than recommendations. HONcode certification was indicative of higher quality, but not readability. Disclosures K. Murray None. T. Murray None. C. Low None. A. O'Rourke None. D.J. Veale None.

scholarly journals Quality evaluation of the available Internet information regarding pain during orthodontic treatment

2012 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 500-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christos Livas ◽  
Konstantina Delli ◽  
Yijin Ren
Keyword(s):  
Web Sites ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Structural Development ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Internet Information ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
Orthodontic Pain ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Web

ABSTRACT Objective: To investigate the quality of the data disseminated via the Internet regarding pain experienced by orthodontic patients. Materials and Methods: A systematic online search was performed for ‘orthodontic pain’ and ‘braces pain’ separately using five search engines. The first 25 results from each search term–engine combination were pooled for analysis. After excluding advertising sites, discussion groups, video feeds, and links to scientific articles, 25 Web pages were evaluated in terms of accuracy, readability, accessibility, usability, and reliability using recommended research methodology; reference textbook material, the Flesch Reading Ease Score; and the LIDA instrument. Author and information details were also recorded. Results: Overall, the results indicated a variable quality of the available informational material. Although the readability of the Web sites was generally acceptable, the individual LIDA categories were rated of medium or low quality, with average scores ranging from 16.9% to 86.2%. The orthodontic relevance of the Web sites was not accompanied by the highest assessment results, and vice versa. Conclusions: The quality of the orthodontic pain information cited by Web sources appears to be highly variable. Further structural development of health information technology along with public referral to reliable sources by specialists are recommended.

scholarly journals Readability and Quality of Online Information on Osteoarthritis: An Objective Analysis With Historic Comparison (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran Edward Murray ◽  
Timothy Eanna Murray ◽  
Anna Caroline O'Rourke ◽  
Candice Low ◽  
Douglas James Veale
Keyword(s):  
Grade Level ◽  
English Language ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
12Th Grade ◽  
8Th Grade ◽  
Ease Score

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common cause of disability in people older than 65 years. Readability of online OA information has never been assessed. A 2003 study found the quality of online OA information to be poor. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to review the readability and quality of current online information regarding OA. METHODS The term osteoarthritis was searched across the three most popular English language search engines. The first 25 pages from each search engine were analyzed. Duplicate pages, websites featuring paid advertisements, inaccessible pages (behind a pay wall, not available for geographical reasons), and nontext pages were excluded. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fog Index. Website quality was scored using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and the DISCERN criteria. Presence or absence of the Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification, age of content, content producer, and author characteristics were noted. RESULTS A total of 37 unique websites were found suitable for analysis. Readability varied by assessment tool from 8th to 12th grade level. This compares with the recommended 7th to 8th grade level. Of the 37, 1 (2.7%) website met all 4 JAMA criteria. Mean DISCERN quality of information for OA websites was “fair,” compared with the “poor” grading of a 2003 study. HONcode-endorsed websites (43%, 16/37) were of a statistically significant higher quality. CONCLUSIONS Readability of online health information for OA was either equal to or more difficult than the recommended level.

Surfing for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Perspectives on Quality and Content of Information on the Internet

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 1755-1762 ◽  
Author(s):  
JENNIFER N. STINSON ◽  
LORI TUCKER ◽  
ADAM HUBER ◽  
HEATHER HARRIS ◽  
CARMEN LIN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
English Language ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Web Pages ◽  
Internet Health Information ◽  
Internet Information ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
Website Content

Objective.To determine the quality and content of English language Internet information about juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) from the perspectives of consumers and healthcare professionals.Methods.Key words relevant to JIA were searched across 10 search engines. Quality of information was appraised independently by 2 health professionals, 1 young adult with JIA, and a parent using the DISCERN tool. Concordance of the website content (i.e., accuracy and completeness) with available evidence about the management of JIA was determined. Readability was determined using Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Reading Ease Score.Results.Out of the 3000 Web pages accessed, only 58 unique sites met the inclusion criteria. Of these sites only 16 had DISCERN scores above 50% (indicating fair quality). These sites were then rated by consumers. Most sites targeted parents and none were specifically developed for youth with JIA. The overall quality of website information was fair, with a mean DISCERN quality rating score of 48.92 out of 75 (± 6.56, range 34.0–59.5). Overall completeness of sites was 9.07 out of 16 (± 2.28, range 5.25–13.25) and accuracy was 3.09 out of 4 (± 0.86, range 2–4), indicating a moderate level of accuracy. Average Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Reading Ease Score were 11.48 (± 0.74, range 10.1–12.0) and 36.36 (± 10.86, range 6.30–48.1), respectively, indicating that the material was difficult to read.Conclusion.Our study highlights the paucity of high quality Internet health information at an appropriate reading level for youth with JIA and their parents.

scholarly journals Readability and Quality of Online Information on Osteoarthritis: An Objective Analysis With Historic Comparison

10.2196/12855 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e12855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran Edward Murray ◽  
Timothy Eanna Murray ◽  
Anna Caroline O'Rourke ◽  
Candice Low ◽  
Douglas James Veale
Keyword(s):  
Grade Level ◽  
English Language ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
12Th Grade ◽  
8Th Grade ◽  
Ease Score

Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common cause of disability in people older than 65 years. Readability of online OA information has never been assessed. A 2003 study found the quality of online OA information to be poor. Objective The aim of this study was to review the readability and quality of current online information regarding OA. Methods The term osteoarthritis was searched across the three most popular English language search engines. The first 25 pages from each search engine were analyzed. Duplicate pages, websites featuring paid advertisements, inaccessible pages (behind a pay wall, not available for geographical reasons), and nontext pages were excluded. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fog Index. Website quality was scored using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and the DISCERN criteria. Presence or absence of the Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification, age of content, content producer, and author characteristics were noted. Results A total of 37 unique websites were found suitable for analysis. Readability varied by assessment tool from 8th to 12th grade level. This compares with the recommended 7th to 8th grade level. Of the 37, 1 (2.7%) website met all 4 JAMA criteria. Mean DISCERN quality of information for OA websites was “fair,” compared with the “poor” grading of a 2003 study. HONcode-endorsed websites (43%, 16/37) were of a statistically significant higher quality. Conclusions Readability of online health information for OA was either equal to or more difficult than the recommended level.

DOZ047.115: Quality and readability of esophageal atresia information on the Internet

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
B R O’Connor ◽  
E Doherty ◽  
F Friedmacher ◽  
L Vernon ◽  
T S Paran
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Atresia ◽  
Oesophageal Atresia ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Google Search

Abstract Introduction Increasingly in pediatric surgical practice, patients, their parents, and surgeons alike use the Internet as an easily and quickly accessible source of information about conditions and their treatment. The quality and reliability of this information may often be unregulated. We aim to objectively assess the online information available relating to esophageal atresia and its management. Methods We performed searches for ‘oesophageal atresia’ and ‘esophageal atresia’ using the Google, Yahoo, and Bing engines to encompass both European and American spellings. We assessed the first 20 results of each search and excluded duplicates or unrelated pages. The DISCERN score and the Health on the Net Foundation Code (HONcode) toolbar were utilized to assess the quality of information on each website. We evaluated readability with the Flesch reading ease (FRE) and the Flesch–Kincaid grade (FKG). Results Of the original 120 hits, 61 were excluded (51 duplicates, 10 unrelated). Out of 59 individual sites reviewed, only 13 sites were HONcode approved. The mean overall DISCERN score was 52.55 (range: 22–78). The mean DISCERN score for the search term ‘oesphageal atresia’ was 57 (range: 22–78) in comparison to 59.03 for ‘esophageal atresia’ (range: 27–78). Google search had the lowest overall mean DISCERN score at 54.83 (range: 35–78), followed by Yahoo at 58.03 (range: 22–78), and Bing with the highest overall mean score of 61.2 (range: 27–78). The majority of websites were graded excellent (≥63) or good (51–62), 43% and 27%, respectively; 20% were scored as fair (39–50), with 10% being either poor (27–38) or very poor (≤26). In terms of readability, the overall Flesch Reading Ease score was 33.02, and the overall Flesch–Kincaid grade level was 10.3. Conclusions The quality of freely available online information relating to esophageal atresia is generally good but may not be accessible to everyone due to being relatively difficult to read. We should direct parents towards comprehensive, high-quality, and easily readable information sources should they wish to supplement their knowledge about esophageal atresia and its management.

Do Patients Access Appropriate Information Online?

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (04) ◽  
pp. 428-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amar Gupta ◽  
Dennis Bojrab ◽  
Adam Folbe ◽  
Michael Carron ◽  
Michael Nissan
Keyword(s):  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Professional Organization ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Internet Information ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
High Quality Information ◽  
Survey Instruments ◽  
Academic Group

AbstractHealth care providers should be aware of information available on the Internet to ensure proper patient care. The current analysis assesses the reliability, quality, and readability of internet information describing rhytidectomy. Previously validated survey instruments to assess the reliability, quality, and readability of online websites describing rhytidectomy were used. An internet search using Google with the search term “facelift” was conducted. The first 50 search results were reviewed, and 36 were deemed appropriate to be included in this analysis. Websites were divided based on type of authorship into professional organization, academic, physician based, and unidentified. The validated DISCERN instrument was used to determine reliability, quality, and overall rating of each site. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) were used to measure readability. A 1 to 3 point scale was used to rate websites, with a higher number indicating a website that possessed either greater reliability or greater quality. Mean scores for reliability ranged from 1.7 (±0.99) in the academic group to 2.0 (±0.12) in the unidentified group. Mean scores for quality ranged from 1.5 (±0.13) in the unidentified group to 1.7 (±0.38) in the physician-based group. The highest overall rating was 1.4 (±0.22 and ± 0.31, respectively) in the unidentified and physician-based groups. The lowest overall rating was 1 (±0.58) in the academic group. FRESs ranged from 21.6 to 74.6. FKGLs ranged from 6.9 to 13.9. Information available online regarding rhytidectomy may be significantly deficient in reliability, quality, and readability. These deficiencies are present in articles with all types of author affiliations. This underscores the clinicians' duty to provide patients with high-quality information at an adequate level of comprehension.

scholarly journals An objective analysis of quality and readability of online information on COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. E. Wrigley Kelly ◽  
K. E. Murray ◽  
C. McCarthy ◽  
D. B. O’Shea
Keyword(s):  
Grade Level ◽  
English Language ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
12Th Grade ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Impact

AbstractHigh quality, readable health information is vital to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to assess the quality and readability of online COVID-19 information using 6 validated tools. This is a cross-sectional study. “COVID-19” was searched across the three most popular English language search engines. Quality was evaluated using the DISCERN score, Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria and Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Gunning-Fog Index. 41 websites were suitable for analysis. 9.8% fulfilled all JAMA criteria. Only one website was HONCode certified. Mean DISCERN score was 47.8/80 (“fair”). This was highest in websites published by a professional society/medical journal/healthcare provider. Readability varied from an 8th to 12th grade level. The overall quality of online COVID-19 information was “fair”. Much of this information was above the recommended 5th to 6th grade level, impeding access for many.

The reliability of the Internet for patient-centred education for surgical procedures

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 197-203
Author(s):  
Ca Slinger ◽  
I Smillie
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Written Information ◽  
Ease Score

Background There is increasing use of the Internet by patients as an educational tool prior to a surgical procedure. However, the quality of information is highly variable, and it is imperative that as clinicians, we are aware of the information available to ensure that consent is valid and avoid unrealistic expectations. Our aim is to assess the quality of medical information available on the Internet related to common surgical procedures. Methods Analysis of the quality of patient information on 10 websites for six common surgical conditions ( n = 54 following exclusions) was assessed using the DISCERN questionnaire and, for readability, using the Flesch reading ease test. Results There was high variation in the DISCERN score from 1.34 to 4.4 (mean 2.75). Overall, poor quality of patient information is available. Consistent scoring below 55 on Flesch reading ease score suggests a reading level beyond the majority of the patient population. Conclusion The majority of patient-centred health education on the Internet is poor. Therefore, improved verbal and written information during consultation combined with local, national and international websites is important to meet patient’s expectations and avoid issues regarding consent.

scholarly journals The quality of Internet information on lingual orthodontics in the English language, with DISCERN and JAMA

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hatice Kübra Olkun ◽  
Arzu Arı Demirkaya ◽  
Banu Aras
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Lingual Orthodontics ◽  
Internet Information ◽  
Lingual Braces ◽  
Lingual Brackets

Objectives: This study investigated the quality of Internet information in the English language about lingual orthodontics. Design: A cross-sectional study Materials and Methods: An Internet search using the keywords ‘lingual orthodontics’, ‘lingual braces’, ‘lingual treatment’ and ‘lingual brackets’ was conducted on the four most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing and AOL) on 4 February 2017. The first 10 websites for each keyword and search engine were screened. After excluding duplicates and irrelevant websites, the remaining were assessed using the DISCERN tool and JAMA benchmarks. Results: Of the original 160 websites found, 132 were excluded (102 duplicates, 30 unrelated). The authors of the remaining 28 websites were orthodontists (39.2%), professional organisations (21%), unspecified (17.8%), dentists (7.1%), dental hygienists (7.1%) and patients (7.1%). The mean overall DISCERN score for the 28 websites was poor (36.3). Only 1/28 websites met all four principles of JAMA, four websites met three criteria, 10 websites met two criteria and 13 websites met one criterion. Conclusion: Online information on lingual orthodontics was of poor quality; moreover, unbiased and balanced information was rare. Orthodontists should be aware that the average quality of information on the Internet about lingual orthodontics might be inadequate and should direct patients to higher-quality websites.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document