Availability of accessible and high-quality information on the Internet for patients regarding the diagnosis and management of rotator cuff tears

Dalton, David; Kelly, Enda; Molony, Diarmuid C.

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.09.036

Cited by 39 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Internet is constantly changing, and it is possible new search results and ranks could be generated on another search date. Although this could be true, similar results published by Dalton et al 45 a few years before this publication makes this unlikely in the near future. Also, it is possible that websites outside the top 25 could have contained high-quality information.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 51%

“…The average JAMA score in this study was 2.34, which is relatively higher than scores from previous studies (1.43-2.1) in the orthopaedic literature. 23,30,32,45 However, a significant relationship between JAMA score and quality was not found, and thus website transparency and disclosure of sources does not necessarily enhance the quality of information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The analysis of reading level showed that only 1 article met a sixth-grade reading level (2.1%), which is similar to results published by other authors. 23,24,28,45 Zero websites met the recommended fifth-grade reading level for healthcare information recently proposed by the Joint Commission. 36 These findings are especially concerning, given that Medicare insures the largest population of patients at risk for rotator cuff tears in the United States, 46 and the average reading level for a Medicare beneficiary is at a fifth-grade level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…49 Although HONcode certification is an indicator of credibility, future authors researching the quality of online information should continue to study it to better define its relationship to quality. Dalton et al 45 performed an evaluation of websites on rotator cuff tears and evaluated quality of treatment with the DISCERN instrument. 50 They found that the quality of available information is poor and the readability is inappropriately high.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Online Resources for Rotator Cuff Repair: What are Patients Reading?

Goldenberg

Schairer

Dekker

et al. 2019

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to use a novel scoring system to evaluate the content and grade the quality of websites that patients may use to learn about rotator cuff repair. Methods: Two search terms ("rotator cuff repair" and "rotator cuff surgery") were entered into 3 Internet search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing). We scored the quality of information using a novel scoring system. Website quality was further assessed by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and Health on the Net Foundation (HON) code certification. The readability of the websites was evaluated with the Flesch-Kincaid score. Results: We evaluated 47 websites. The average quality for all websites was 6.47 AE 5.21 (maximum 20 points). There was a large difference in scores between the top 5 websites and the remaining websites (16.30 vs 5.51, P < .001). There was no difference in scores when comparing the 3 different search engines (P ¼ .85). The mean reading level was 10.17 AE 2.24. Reading level was not significantly correlated with quality (r s ¼ 0.14, P ¼ .36). The average JAMA benchmark criteria score for all websites was 2.34 AE 1.11 (maximum 4 points). JAMA criteria score was not significantly correlated with quality (r s ¼ 0.02, P ¼ .91). Sites without HONcode certification had higher quality scores (8.33 AE 4.80) than sites with HONcode certification (6.18 AE 4.66), but this difference was not statistically significant (P ¼ .15). Conclusion: The quality of patient-level information on rotator cuff repair on the Internet is both incomplete and written at a reading level higher than current recommendations. Information quality is not significantly correlated with reading level or JAMA criteria, and does not depend on the search term used or HONcode certification. Clinical Relevance: Patients having rotator cuff repair may seek information on the Internet; the information may require surgeon clarification.

show abstract

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 51%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Online Resources for Rotator Cuff Repair: What are Patients Reading?

Goldenberg

Schairer

Dekker

et al. 2019

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is only a portion of all the available websites on our topic of interest, although we found that using related search terms resulted in very similar results. In this study, we used only one search engine for retrieving information; however, the search engine we used is the most widely used engine globally for obtaining health-related information [7, 35]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readability Assessment of Online Patient Education Material on Congestive Heart Failure

Kher

Johnson

Griffith

2017

Advances in Preventive Medicine

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Online health information is being used more ubiquitously by the general population. However, this information typically favors only a small percentage of readers, which can result in suboptimal medical outcomes for patients. Objective The readability of online patient education materials regarding the topic of congestive heart failure was assessed through six readability assessment tools. Methods The search phrase “congestive heart failure” was employed into the search engine Google. Out of the first 100 websites, only 70 were included attending to compliance with selection and exclusion criteria. These were then assessed through six readability assessment tools. Results Only 5 out of 70 websites were within the limits of the recommended sixth-grade readability level. The mean readability scores were as follows: the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (9.79), Gunning-Fog Score (11.95), Coleman-Liau Index (15.17), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index (11.39), and the Flesch Reading Ease (48.87). Conclusion Most of the analyzed websites were found to be above the sixth-grade readability level recommendations. Efforts need to be made to better tailor online patient education materials to the general population.

show abstract