Male infertility on the internet: an analysis of web‐based resources

Zahalsky, Michael P.; Wilson, Sean R.; Blasio, Christopher J. Di; Lam, S.K.; Nagler, Harris M.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2005.05377.x

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, this accreditation was associated, on multivariate analysis, with higher-quality Web sites. This is encouraging because previous studies have found much lower percentages of accredited Web sites addressing pediatric surgical [14] and adult urologic [15] conditions. It is unclear whether the proportion of accredited sites in this study is reflective of a general trend toward increasing accreditation of online health resources, or whether this is an observation that applies only to cryptorchidism.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Cryptorchidism: the veracity of online information accessible to the public

Braunstein

Afshar

MacNeily

2007

Journal of Pediatric Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Cryptorchidism: the veracity of online information accessible to the public

Braunstein

Afshar

MacNeily

2007

Journal of Pediatric Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, for patients seeking fertility-related information, the quality is variable; online information rarely meets standards of accuracy, credibility, and navigability [17,18]. Moreover, many websites are often largely designed as advertisements, lack references [19], and have reading levels most appropriate for individuals with at least a high school education [20]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Health Information Regarding Male Infertility: An Evaluation of Readability, Suitability, and Quality

Robins¹,

Barr²,

Idelson³

et al. 2016

Interact J Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMany men lack knowledge about male infertility, and this may have consequences for their reproductive and general health. Men may prefer to seek health information online, but these sources of information vary in quality.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to determine if online sources of information regarding male infertility are readable, suitable, and of appropriate quality for Internet users in the general population.MethodsThis study used a cross-sectional design to evaluate online sources resulting from search engine queries. The following categories of websites were considered: (1) Canadian fertility clinics, (2) North American organizations related to fertility, and (3) the first 20 results of Google searches using the terms “male infertility” and “male fertility preservation” set to the search locations worldwide, English Canada, and French Canada. Websites that met inclusion criteria (N=85) were assessed using readability indices, the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM), and the DISCERN tool. The associations between website affiliation (government, university/medical, non-profit organization, commercial/corporate, private practice) and Google placement to readability, suitability, and quality were also examined.ResultsNone of the sampled websites met recommended levels of readability. Across all websites, the mean SAM score for suitability was 45.37% (SD 11.21), or “adequate”, while the DISCERN mean score for quality was 43.19 (SD 10.46) or “fair”. Websites that placed higher in Google obtained a higher overall score for quality with an r (58) value of -.328 and a P value of .012, but this position was not related to readability or suitability. In addition, 20% of fertility clinic websites did not include fertility information for men.ConclusionsThere is a lack of high quality online sources of information on male fertility. Many websites target their information to women, or fail to meet established readability criteria for the general population. Since men may prefer to seek health information online, it is important that health care professionals develop high quality sources of information on male fertility for the general population.

show abstract

“…2,3 We predicted that accreditation rates would continue to rise as the Internet and its users matured.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Paging Dr Google

MacNeily

2013

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W e all do it. With the click of a mouse, tap of a tablet screen or touch of a smart phone, we access information. We do it to shop, to learn of current events and to keep in contact with friends and colleagues. In the clinic and the operating room, teachers and learners access health information daily. Patients and families routinely arrive in clinic requesting a second opinion after they've already had a private consultation with Dr. Google.How reliable is health information on the Internet? Six years ago we published on the veracity of online information available regarding cryptorchidism.1 Of 124 websites, only 35% were endorsed by a non-profit accrediting body, 77% did not provide references for the information provided and 48% did not identify an author for the content. Multivariate analysis showed that only accreditation status was associated with high quality content.At that time, a 35% accreditation rate was an improvement compared to previous assessments of the content validity of urological websites. 2,3 We predicted that accreditation rates would continue to rise as the Internet and its users matured.The accompanying manuscript by Wong and colleagues, now, 6 years later, would suggest that our prediction was wrong.4 Looking specifically at urological websites in the 10 largest cities in the United States, the authors found that although most sites provided health information, only 3 of 78 websites displayed the logo signifying endorsement by the Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct (HONcode). Although the sites consistently provided the qualifications of the urologists and their intended audience, on the other hand financial disclosures, a distinction between advertising and editorial content, and supporting references were rarely if ever provided. In general, these websites, hosted by urologists, scored poorly when two validated online tools for assessing site reliability were applied.It is tempting to smugly dismiss these findings as evidence of crass commercialization of medicine south of the border -something irrelevant to our own health care system. However, it is our responsibility to educate our patients regardless of what type of system we work in. If we are to do so online, we should ensure that the website we host and the content we disseminate has been vetted by an accrediting body. In addition to HONcode, the Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC) is an independent nonprofit organization which can help with this process.5 Its stated mission is "To promote continuous improvement

show abstract

Male infertility on the internet: an analysis of web‐based resources

Cited by 9 publications

References 7 publications

Cryptorchidism: the veracity of online information accessible to the public

Cryptorchidism: the veracity of online information accessible to the public

Online Health Information Regarding Male Infertility: An Evaluation of Readability, Suitability, and Quality

Paging Dr Google

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About