Hand It to Dr Google: The Quality of Online Information on Ganglion Cysts

Abstract

Background: The internet is becoming a common source of health information for hand surgery patients. This study evaluates the quality of web-based resources on ganglion cysts of the hand. Methods: We completed a search for “ganglion cyst” on 3 search engines (Google, Dogpile, and Yippy). The quality of the top-100 patient education websites was assessed using a validated internet rating tool. Websites were evaluated based on affiliation, accountability, currency, interactivity, website organization, readability, coverage, and accuracy. Results: Of the 100 websites, the majority (74%) had commercial affiliations. Only 34% of websites identified an author, and even fewer identified the authors’ credentials (27%) or affiliations (26%). A third of the websites cited references, and less than half provided an update date. The average readability based on Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 9.2, and only 3% could be read at or below 6th grade reading level. Prevention was the most poorly covered topic at 13% due to omission. In all, 66% of the websites were completely accurate in terms of global accuracy. Websites were most likely to present inaccurate information on treatment, often failing to mention conservative treatment (watch-and-wait approach) or promoting the use of natural health products. We also found 5% of websites presented closed rupture of the ganglion cyst as a legitimate home remedy. Conclusions: The overall quality of online information on ganglion cysts is highly variable and may occasionally be harmful for patients. It is increasingly important for physicians to prompt patients about their internet use.

Online Readability Analysis: Mohs Micrographic Surgery Postsurgical Wound Care

“…[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]45 The use of health-specific CTR is a unique aspect of this readability analysis, and it enabled specific study of the search results most likely encountered by patients. The majority of prior readability analyses have considered larger sample sizes of URL results, sometimes including as many as 100 query results for analysis 13,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] ; this process is unnecessary when taking health-specific CTR data into account. In addition, a readability analysis of nonmelanoma skin cancers by Basch et al 26 showed that the composite readability scores do not differ significantly between SERP pages.…”

“…The authors' evaluation of the literature also indicated that the most validated and high-yield tools for readability are the five indices used in this study. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]45 The use of health-specific CTR is a unique aspect of this readability analysis, and it enabled specific study of the search results most likely encountered by patients. The majority of prior readability analyses have considered larger sample sizes of URL results, sometimes including as many as 100 query results for analysis 13,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] ; this process is unnecessary when taking health-specific CTR data into account.…”

Quality and readability of online health information on menopausal hormone therapy in Canada: what are our patients reading?

“…These reviewers were gynecologists with further training and expertise in menopause and mature women's health. Five reviewers were included to further improve the reliability and accuracy of subjective scores, as studies evaluating website content typically only use two to three reviewers 26-30 . All reviewers were trained using tool-specific instructions to score each item.…”

“…Five reviewers were included to further improve the reliability and accuracy of subjective scores, as studies evaluating website content typically only use two to three reviewers. [26][27][28][29][30] All reviewers were trained using tool-specific instructions to score each item. For the DISCERN Instrument, reviewers were provided additional instructions from its handbook (http://www.discern.org.uk/discern.pdf).…”

“…The scores for each question are summed for a total score ranging between 16 and 80. A total score is interpreted as very poor (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26), poor (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38), fair (39-50), good (51-62), or excellent (63-80). 32…”