Quality assessment of patient information on the management of gallstone disease in the internet – A systematic analysis using the modified ensuring quality information for patients tool

COVID-19 prevention and treatment information on the internet: a systematic analysis and quality assessment

“…While high-scoring websites scored significantly higher across 23 of the 36 EQIP items, quantitative benefits (item 8) is a notable exception where both cohorts performed poorly (4.1% vs 2.4%; OR 1.695; 95% CI 0.267 to 8.197; p=0.436) and was significantly lower than the scores in available literature. 18 23 24 This likely reflects the general lack of COVID-19 knowledge compared with previously explored diseases and treatments. High-scoring websites similarly performed better in Identification (OR ranged between 1.312 and 5.376), with the inclusion of bibliography (item 23) differing most (41.89% vs 11.74%; OR 5.376; 95% CI 1.727 to 7.407; p<0.001) as the majority of websites lacked bibliographies, potentially due to subpar production quality in a high turnover topic.…”

“…Only the first 10 pages of unique websites were identified and recorded as previous work suggests patients tend to stay within the first 100 returned webpages. 18 24 Various search terms and their relative popularity were also collected directly from Google Trends 34 for further comparative analysis.…”

“…36 This serves to satisfy both the guidelines of British Medical Association 37 and International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration 38 on the ideal patient information and the modified EQIP Tool have been used in a variety of specialities previously. [17][18][19] A decision was made to use the modified EQIP Tool as the inclusion of 'partly yes' in the original EQIP introduces subjectivity into the responses and has been shown to lower its reliability. 24 35 Thirty-six items across three domains were included: Content (items 1-18), Identification (items [19][20][21][22][23][24] and Structure (items [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36].…”

“…16 The modified Ensuring Quality of Information for Patient's (EQIP) Tool is a reproducible modality used in previous studies to evaluate the reliability and quality of all information types, providing a robust assessment of quality, readability and design aspects of any written information. [17][18][19] Previously, our group evaluated online information using the modified EQIP Tool in a variety of conditions and procedures including bariatric surgery, 20 Dupuytren's disease, 21 carpal tunnel disease, 22 breast augmentation, 23 liposuction 17 and liver transplantation. 24 The Minervation validation instrument (LIDA, no acronym), 25 Flesch Reading Ease Score and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade have also been used to evaluate the quality of online health information.…”

Quality assessment of patient information on orthognathic surgery on the internet

“…The EQIP tool is comparable to the British Medical Association patient information award appraisal form for some criteria, and includes the three key aspects: content, structure, and identification data. The EQIP tool has adequate interrater reliability (Charvet-Berard et al, 2008;Nicholls et al, 2009;Vaona et al, 2011;Melloul et al, 2012;Frueh et al, 2015;Haymes, 2016;Palma et al, 2016;Zuk et al, 2016Zuk et al, , 2017Karamitros et al, 2017;Raptis et al, 2019). It is often preferred over the DISCERN tool because the latter focuses more on readability than on quality of information (Hargrave et al, 2006).…”