scholarly journals High tibial osteotomy: A review of the readability and quality of patient information on the internet

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-328
Author(s):  
Matthew Clark ◽  
Ian Colin Baxter ◽  
Matthew Hampton ◽  
Robert D Sandler ◽  
Andrew Legg
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
High Tibial Osteotomy ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Tibial Osteotomy ◽  
Common Procedure ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease

Background: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a common procedure performed for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA). Patients are increasingly using the internet to research surgical procedures to help aid decision making. Our aim was to assess the readability and quality of information available to patients online relating to HTO. Methods: A systematic review of three search engines Google, Bing, and Yahoo using the search terms "high tibial osteotomy" and "tibial osteotomy" separately was performed. The first three pages of results for each search engine were analyzed. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Scale (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade level (FKGL) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook formula (SMOG). Quality was assessed with the DISCERN questionnaire, JAMAbenchmarks and the presence of Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONCode). Results: Twenty-four webpages were included after duplicates (n=42) and exclusions (n=24).The overall readability was low, with a mean FRES of 53.2 (SD: 9.1), FKGL 10.7 (SD: 1.8),SMOG 10.4 (SD: 1.5). Quality was also low with a mean DISCERN score of 42 (SD: 12.3).None of the webpages fulfilled all of the JAMA benchmarking criteria and only 2/24 (8.3%)webpages possessed HONCode certification. Conclusion: The overall online information available to patient’s considering HTO is of lowreadability and quality. Improving the quality and readability of patient information online willbenefit informed patient decision making before HTO surgery.

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.

scholarly journals Factors Associated with the Quality of Online Information about Scapholunate Interosseous Ligament Insufficiency

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (02) ◽  
pp. 094-099
Author(s):  
Daniel Bakker ◽  
Janna S. E. Ottenhoff ◽  
David Ring
Keyword(s):  
Web Sites ◽  
Ligament Injury ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Interosseous Ligament ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
Ibm Watson

Abstract Background The Internet is increasingly used by patients to seek health information about their medical conditions. The online information is of variable quality, often difficult to read, and sometimes inaccurate or misleading. This study assessed factors associated with the quality, readability, and dominant tones of online information about scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL) insufficiency. Materials and Methods Using the three most used search engines, we entered the terms “wrist sprain,” “scapholunate ligament injury,” and “SL dissociation” and assessed the quality of the 45 Web sites identified using the DISCERN tool, readability by the Flesch Reading Ease Score, the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, the Gunning Fog Index, and the Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook, and dominant tones using the IBM Watson Tone Analyzer and the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. Results Online information about SLIL injuries had a mean DISCERN score of 39 ± 8.2. A dominant Web site tone of “sadness” correlated with lower DISCERN scores. A dominant tentative tone in text was associated with easier to comprehend texts. Conclusion The online information regarding SLIL insufficiency is of generally low quality, limited readability, and the underlying tones may be misleading. Professional societies might consider efforts to provide appealing, readable, information about SLIL insufficiency and other less common diagnoses on the Internet.

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.

scholarly journals Misinformation of COVID-19 on the Internet: Infodemiology Study

10.2196/18444 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e18444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Yunam Cuan-Baltazar ◽  
Maria José Muñoz-Perez ◽  
Carolina Robledo-Vega ◽  
Maria Fernanda Pérez-Zepeda ◽  
Elena Soto-Vega
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Search Time ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Search For Information

Background The internet has become an important source of health information for users worldwide. The novel coronavirus caused a pandemic search for information with broad dissemination of false or misleading health information. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of online information about the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which was a trending topic on the internet, using validated instruments and relating the quality of information to its readability. Methods The search was based on the term “Wuhan Coronavirus” on the Google website (February 6, 2020). At the search time, the terms “COVID-19” or “SARS-CoV-2” (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) did not exist. Critical analysis was performed on the first 110 hits using the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark, the DISCERN instrument, and Google ranking. Results The first 110 websites were critically analyzed, and only 1.8% (n=2) of the websites had the HONcode seal. The JAMA benchmark showed that 39.1% (n=43) of the websites did not have any of the categories required by this tool, and only 10.0% (11/110) of the websites had the four quality criteria required by JAMA. The DISCERN score showed that 70.0% (n=77) of the websites were evaluated as having a low score and none were rated as having a high score. Conclusions Nonhealth personnel and the scientific community need to be aware about the quality of the information they read and produce, respectively. The Wuhan coronavirus health crisis misinformation was produced by the media, and the misinformation was obtained by users from the internet. The use of the internet has a risk to public health, and, in cases like this, the governments should be developing strategies to regulate health information on the internet without censuring the population. By February 6, 2020, no quality information was available on the internet about COVID-19.

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 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.

scholarly journals Misinformation of COVID-19 on the Internet: Infodemiology Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Yunam Cuan-Baltazar ◽  
Maria José Muñoz-Perez ◽  
Carolina Robledo-Vega ◽  
Maria Fernanda Pérez-Zepeda ◽  
Elena Soto-Vega
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Search Time ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Search For Information

BACKGROUND The internet has become an important source of health information for users worldwide. The novel coronavirus caused a pandemic search for information with broad dissemination of false or misleading health information. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of online information about the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which was a trending topic on the internet, using validated instruments and relating the quality of information to its readability. METHODS The search was based on the term “Wuhan Coronavirus” on the Google website (February 6, 2020). At the search time, the terms “COVID-19” or “SARS-CoV-2” (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) did not exist. Critical analysis was performed on the first 110 hits using the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark, the DISCERN instrument, and Google ranking. RESULTS The first 110 websites were critically analyzed, and only 1.8% (n=2) of the websites had the HONcode seal. The JAMA benchmark showed that 39.1% (n=43) of the websites did not have any of the categories required by this tool, and only 10.0% (11/110) of the websites had the four quality criteria required by JAMA. The DISCERN score showed that 70.0% (n=77) of the websites were evaluated as having a low score and none were rated as having a high score. CONCLUSIONS Nonhealth personnel and the scientific community need to be aware about the quality of the information they read and produce, respectively. The Wuhan coronavirus health crisis misinformation was produced by the media, and the misinformation was obtained by users from the internet. The use of the internet has a risk to public health, and, in cases like this, the governments should be developing strategies to regulate health information on the internet without censuring the population. By February 6, 2020, no quality information was available on the internet about COVID-19.

scholarly journals Return to sports and quality of life after high tibial osteotomy in patients under 60 years of age

2017 ◽  
Vol 103 (8) ◽  
pp. 1189-1191 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Bastard ◽  
G. Mirouse ◽  
D. Potage ◽  
H. Silbert ◽  
F. Roubineau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
High Tibial Osteotomy ◽  
Return To Sports ◽  
Tibial Osteotomy

scholarly journals Patient Information on Benign Colorectal Disease: An Assessment of the Value and Effectiveness of Traditional Methods

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 1410-1416
Author(s):  
Connor Boyle ◽  
Greg Bear ◽  
Marjolein van Winsen ◽  
Gary Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Patient Information ◽  
Information Access ◽  
Subjective Assessment ◽  
Colorectal Disease ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Patient Information Leaflets ◽  
Information Leaflets ◽  
Patient Questionnaires ◽  
Benign Colorectal Disease

Health literacy is the best predictor of health status, with patient information leaflets (PILs) commonly used to improve information access. However, they can often be inconsistent. Benign colorectal disease can be challenging for patients and ensuring they are accurate and understandable is important. Available PILs in a tertiary unit were assessed. The Flesch reading ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level scores were used to calculate objective readability. Subjective assessment of readability, understandability, and patient opinion was assessed using a questionnaire. All PILs had objective readability scores at age 14 or older, above recommended advice. Three hundred sixty patient questionnaires were collected. The relationship between subjective readability and understandability was significant ( P < .05); the easier a patient was able to read the information the more likely they were to understand it. There was no link between objective and subjective readability—a more difficult calculated reading score didn’t correspond to the patient finding it harder to read. Patients preferring paper information were significantly older than patients who preferred online information ( P = .01). Patient information leaflets remain valued by patients, and PILs that patients find easier to read are then better understood; however, ease of reading is not related to objective readability scoring and there was no consensus that a shift to online information is merited.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document