Quality and readability of internet-based information on halitosis

Jo, Janghyun; Kim, Eui Joo; Kim, Ji Rak; Kim, Moon Jong; Chung, Jin Woo; Park, Ji Woon

doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2017.12.001

Cited by 25 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since this study was the first assessing the readability of written content on periodontal disease, it is difficult to compare the results with the available literature. Although our results indicated simply written and easy to read content, this finding is inconsistent with the results on web-based English information on halitosis [32], dental treatment for patients with ischemic heart disease [33], and dental implants [34].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on periodontal disease

Alakhali

Fageeh

Halboub

et al. 2021

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Currently, the Internet seems to be a helpful tool for obtaining information about everything that we think about, including diseases, their prevention and treatment approaches. However, doubts exist regarding the quality and readability of such information. This study sought to assess the quality and readability of web-based Arabic information on periodontal disease. Methods In this infodemiological study, the Google, Yahoo!, and Bing search engines were searched using specific Arabic terms on periodontal disease. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were obtained. The eligible websites were categorized as commercial, health/professional, journalism, and other. The following tools were applied to assess the quality of the information on the included websites: the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the DISCERN tool. The readability was assessed using an online readability tool. Results Of the 300 websites, 89 were eligible for quality and readability analyses. Only two websites (2.3%) were HONcode certified. Based on the DISCERN tool, 43 (48.3%) websites had low scores. The mean score of the JAMA benchmarks was 1.6 ± 1.0, but only 3 (3.4%) websites achieved “yes” responses for all four JAMA criteria. Based on the DISCERN tool, health/professional websites revealed the highest quality of information compared to other website categories. Most of the health/professional websites revealed moderate-quality information, while 55% of the commercial websites, 66% of journalism websites, and 43% of other websites showed poor quality information. Regarding readability, most of the analyzed websites presented simple and readable written content. Conclusions Aside from readable content, Arabic health information on the analyzed websites on periodontal disease is below the required level of quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on periodontal disease

Alakhali

Fageeh

Halboub

et al. 2021

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results show higher reliability and concordance with DISCERN when used to evaluate the quality of online patient drug information. This has also been observed in other studies 22 27…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Are we offering patients the right medicines information? A retrospective evaluation of readability and quality in online patient drug information

Sabaté¹,

Diego²

2020

Eur J Hosp Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the quality and readability of patient drug information published on a corporate website and written by a multidisciplinary team including pharmacists, doctors, nurses, journalists, experts in healthcare communication, and patients. Documents were user-tested with patients in order to improve and adapt the final product.MethodsReadability was measured using the INFLESZ tool, a software developed from the Flesch formula and adapted to Spanish. DISCERN and EQIP were used for quality appraisal by two independent raters as they have shown to be useful and consistent for assessing information related to treatment and treatment choices.ResultsMost of the documents (>67%) had an easy readability level, implying that they would be easily understood by a person with a primary school education level. The DISCERN tool showed higher reliability and concordance than EQIP. The overall DISCERN mean score for the documents was 55.4% for rater 1% and 51% for rater 2, implying very good quality.ConclusionsThis retrospective analysis supports the implemented workflow of the multidisciplinary team and the user-testing process and encourages continuation of this systematic development of documents. Although both EQIP and DISCERN are useful and widely used tools, according to our results we would favour DISCERN to evaluate patient drug information.

show abstract

“…However, the websites created for commercial purposes are more complete. These results are in line with those recorded in a study into the information available online on halitosis, in which it was observed that websites created for commercial purposes surpassed the rest ( 29 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Quality and readability of the dental information obtained by patients on Internet: criteria for selecting medical consultation websites

Allegue-Magaz

Diago²,

Chamorro-Petronacci³

et al. 2020

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The main objective of this study is to examine the quality of the information available for patients online with regards to the apicoectomy surgical procedure, both on general and critically selected websites. The hypothesis is that general websites has less quality than other that have been pre-selected. Material and Methods A search for the English term "apicoectomy” was performed online. The first 100 websites that appeared in both Google and Yahoo were analysed. Seven validated instruments were used for these two dimensions: quality (DISCERN, JAMA and EQIP), and readability (FRES, Fog Scale, FKRGL and SMOG). Results A total of 21 websites (10.5%) were selected. The readability of the websites in both groups was difficult or very difficult. With regards to the quality of the websites, the DISCERN instrument indicated an average value of 2.28 [2.14-2.39] for all of the websites, therefore indicating very low quality with serious defects; however, in the selected websites, the average quality was 3.16 [2.84-3.48], indicating potential, but not serious defects ( p <0.001). There were statistically significant differences for the FRES values ( p = 0.030), with a greater readability in the selected group of websites. Conclusions We believe that it is very important for the population to become aware of and learn how to use certain exclusion criteria when selecting medical consultation websites, as in doing so, they will be able to obtain a higher quality of information from these websites. Key words: Apicoectomy, readability, DISCERN.

show abstract

Quality and readability of internet-based information on halitosis

Cited by 25 publications

References 35 publications

Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on periodontal disease

Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on periodontal disease

Are we offering patients the right medicines information? A retrospective evaluation of readability and quality in online patient drug information

Quality and readability of the dental information obtained by patients on Internet: criteria for selecting medical consultation websites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About