Quality and readability of internet information about stuttering

Zraick, Richard I.; Azios, Michael; Handley, M M; Bellon-Harn, Monica L.; Manchaiah, Vinaya

doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.105824

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The current analysis provides an extensive evaluation of MGUS-related online health information. Previously published analyses on the reliability and accuracy of online health information mainly focus on otorhinolaryngology-related topics [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. Studies on other medical conditions, such as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, SARS-CoV-2, neurological disorders, etc., are available as well [15,[31][32][33][34][35][36].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy and Reliability of Internet Resources for Information on Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance—What Information Is out There for Our Patients?

Kreutzer

Sauer

Kriegsmann

et al. 2021

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Online information gathering can increase patients’ engagement in decision-making. The quality of online resources available for monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) was evaluated. Methods: 900 websites from Google, Bing, Yahoo, and 150 YouTube videos were assessed. Results: The websites did not differ regarding their search rank or between the search engines. The median time since last update was 24 months. The 86 unique websites showed a medium to poor general quality (JAMA score 3/4, only 8.1% websites with a valid HON certificate). The patient- (user-) focused quality was poor (sum DISCERN score 27/80 points). The reading level was difficult (11th US school grade). The content level was very low (13/50 points). 12.8% of websites contained misleading/wrong facts. Websites provided by scientific/governmental organizations had a higher content level. For the 61 unique videos, the median time since upload was 34 months. The videos showed a medium general quality (HON Foundation score). The patient- (user-) focused quality was poor (sum DISCERN score 24 points). The content level was very low (6 points). Conclusion: MGUS-relevant online sources showed a low quality that was provided on a high reading level. Incorporation of quality indices and regular review of online content is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, our results are in line with these previously published studies. Those conclude on frequently outdated, mixed-, or low-quality, and incomplete online health information that requires high readability skills [15,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and Reliability of Internet Resources for Information on Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance—What Information Is out There for Our Patients?

Kreutzer

Sauer

Kriegsmann

et al. 2021

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…might currently represent a source of MM related information online. The majority of previously published studies on the accuracy and reliability of internet resources, in particular websites, for information on different medical disorders and procedures mainly addressed otorhinolaryngology related topics such as sleep apnea, snoring, vestibular disorders, stuttering, and others [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. Studies on the quality of online health information on other medical conditions, such as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, SARS-CoV-2, neurological disorders, systemic lupus erythematosus, etc., are available as well [14,[37][38][39][40][41][42].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The evaluation of videos and websites was performed in an objective, transparent, and reproducible score-based manner applying a set of well-established and broadly-used scores [ 14 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. The applied set of scores did not only cover the general quality and the degree of reading difficulty, but also explicitly addressed the patient- (user-) focused quality of medical information online by the DISCERN score.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of Online Information on Multiple Myeloma Available for Laypersons

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online information can increase patients’ competence and engagement. However, there are concerns regarding invalid information. Overall, 300 websites and 50 YouTube videos on multiple myeloma (MM) were evaluated. The websites did not differ between the search engines or search ranks. The median time since the last update was 9 months. The 63 unique websites showed a poor general quality (median JAMA score 2 of 4, only 18% with a valid HON certificate). The patient- (user-) focused quality was medium to poor (median sum DISCERN score 41 out of 80 points). The overall reading level was difficult requiring at least a 12th US school grade. The content level was low (median 24 out of 73 points). Sixteen percent contained misleading/wrong facts. Websites provided by foundation/advocacies showed a significantly higher general and patient- (user-) focused quality. For videos, the median time since upload was 18 months. Judged by the HON foundation score ~80% of videos showed a medium general quality. The patient- (user-) focused quality was medium to poor (median sum DISCERN score 43 points). The content level was very low (median 8 points). MM relevant websites and videos showed a medium to low general, patient- (user-) focused and content quality. Therefore, incorporation of quality indices and regular review is warranted.

show abstract

“…The range of readability formulae is broad: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Readability Level, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau index, Dale-Chall readability Formula, SMOG Readability Formula and many others. They are designed for different languages, for the texts of different genres, for native speakers and second language learners [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. As we suppose the cross-language (English-Russian) analysis of texts, we should implement the formula, which can be applied for both: English and Russian language texts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fundamentals of materials (text readability evaluation)

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fundamentals of materials represent a core subject at engineering universities dealing with various construction materials. The study of the discipline and the acquiring of knowledge demand a properly designed manual. Apart from content, manual authors should pay attention to the way they compose the text. Different tools are applied to assess the quality of a manual (its difficulty, complexity, readability). Readability formulae play a significant role in the sphere. Dealing with quantitative parameters of a text (the length of sentences, the length of words and others), readability formulae are able to predict the level of text readability and relate the text to a potential reader in respect to their age and academic level. Flesch-Kincaid Readability Level formula is chosen to analyze two manuals: one comes in the English language, the other – in Russian. The idea is to check how readable the texts of both manuals are. 17 English and 17 Russian texts are taken for the analysis. Pearson correlation is applied to illustrate whether the manuals demonstrate decrease or increase of the readability level of texts throughout the books.

show abstract

Quality and readability of internet information about stuttering

Cited by 21 publications

References 59 publications

Accuracy and Reliability of Internet Resources for Information on Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance—What Information Is out There for Our Patients?

Accuracy and Reliability of Internet Resources for Information on Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance—What Information Is out There for Our Patients?

Quality of Online Information on Multiple Myeloma Available for Laypersons

Fundamentals of materials (text readability evaluation)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About