Internet-derived health care information is increasingly accessed by patients, yet its quality and accuracy is variable and unregulated. The aim of this study was to assess the information available regarding common gastrointestinal cancers via three internet search engines (Google, Yahoo and Bing). The top 30 websites for each of the terms: oesophageal, gastric, pancreatic, colon and rectal cancer were evaluated (University of Michigan Consumer Health Website Checklist) and scored [-80 (poor) to 90 (excellent)]. The median score was 53 (-7 to 81) and was significantly higher for oesophageal (61) and pancreatic (65) cancer websites, compared with gastric (49), colon (48) and rectal cancer (50) (p = 0.014). Median scores related to charitable organisations were significantly better than academic, commercial, news agency, care provider, layperson and medical information websites collectively (79 vs. 42, p < 0.0001). Overall quality of internet-derived gastrointestinal cancer information remains poor and patients and clinicians should be aware.

INTRODUCTIONThe internet is a widely used, powerful resource for patients to research medical conditions. There is an extensive amount of information available on the internet. It is important for patient information to be accurate and in an easily accessible format. This article aims to assess the quality of patient information on hydrocephalus and compares the findings with recent evaluations in other surgical specialties.METHODSThe term ‘hydrocephalus’ was searched for on the search engines http://www.google.com/, http://www.bing.com/ and http://www.yahoo.com/. The top 20 results of these searches were assessed using the University of Michigan consumer health website evaluation checklist.RESULTSThe quality of patient information websites on hydrocephalus is highly variable. Websites rarely provide sufficient authorship information, do not review their information regularly enough and only reference material occasionally. The background of the provider was found to influence the quality of the website, with academic and care providers creating the best websites.CONCLUSIONSOn comparing our findings with those of recent studies from other surgical specialties, it was found that there was often a conflict of interest between the background of the provider and the information supplied. It is recommended that clinicians personally research material for their patients to be able to guide them to suitable, accurate websites.