Quality of information about maxillofacial trauma on the Internet

McGoldrick, David; Kielty, P.; Cotter, Chris

doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.09.020

Cited by 24 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our analysis revealed that about 11 years of US school education is necessary to understand the given information properly, while most patient-focused resources aim for a reading grade of 6 [19]. Other studies investigating the readability level of website on oral implants confirmed a similar readability level needed to under-stand the contents [24]. The difficult readability of PI websites observed may be due to the use of complex terminology when describing surgical techniques or naming drugs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…The average overall rating (question 16) of the websites included in this study was 2.0 [2.0-3.0]. This is considerably lower than other DISCERN scores showed by websites related to oral and maxillofacial surgery issues like orthognathic surgery [22], dental implants [13], and maxillofacial trauma [24] as well as tobacco cessation [25]. Unfortunately, if this finding is com-pared with the APR of the included websites, we will observe that those provided by Google® are much more popular than those provided by Yahoo!® and, therefore, more easily accessible for patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Available patient-centered Internet information on peri-implantitis. Can our patients understand it?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Available patient-centered Internet information on peri-implantitis. Can our patients understand it?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is less than the mean scores found in studies assessing the QOI concerning oral lichen planus, maxillofacial trauma, dental implants, adult orthodontics and orthodontic treatment risks. 6,11,13,17,18 It is, however, greater than the corresponding scores reported in investigations in relation to oral leukoplakia, peri-implantitis, lingual orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. 12,[14][15][16] Care, however, must be exercised in directly comparing these results as they assessed a wide range of investigations with varying inclusion and exclusion criteria.…”

Section: Quality Of Web-based Aligner Informationmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…[8][9][10] Investigations, however, have shown that the quality of information (QOI) contained within the websites related to many dental and orthodontic topics is deficient. 6,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Current research also indicates that the readability of websites containing dental and orthodontic information is beyond the levels recommended by Australian and international agencies. 12,14,18 This might mean that relevant information is not understood, or misinterpreted, by many readers and can result in ineffectual treatment decision making and management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Web‐based information on orthodontic clear aligners: a qualitative and readability assessment

Meade

Dreyer

2020

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Data regarding the quality of information (QOI) related to orthodontic clear aligners (OCAs) on the internet are lacking. The aim of the present investigation was to assess the quality and readability of websites providing information regarding OCAs to prospective patients. Methods Three search terms were entered separately into three search engines. Four validated QOI instruments were used to determine the QOI and readability of the content contained within the websites that satisfied predetermined criteria. Descriptive statistical analyses and intrarater testing for DISCERN scores were calculated. Results Forty‐nine websites satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria. General dentists (44.9%) and specialist orthodontists (26.5%) authored the majority of websites. One website contained the Health on the Net (HON) code seal. Cohen’s kappa for DISCERN scores was good (0.87). The overall mean (SD) DISCERN score was 38.55 (8.00)/80, range 26–60. The websites authored by ‘Direct‐to‐consumer’ OCA providers recorded the lowest DISCERN mean score (33/80). One website contained all four Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks. The mean (SD) Flesch Reading Ease score was 53.92 (9.08), range 36–82.5. Conclusions The QOI of the website content related to OCAs is poor and is ‘fairly difficult’ to read. Website authors should consider using QOI instruments and readability tools to enable the delivery of evidence‐based and easily readable information regarding OCAs to prospective patients.

show abstract

“…The popularity of the Internet as a discreet, readily available source of health in-Despite the popularity of online health resources, past research has shown that both the quality [4] [5] and readability level [4] of health-related websites varies widely, with incomplete information and inaccuracies compromising the information available to readers [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Ebola Information in a Knowledge Exchange Social Website (KESW)

Gorman¹,

Yadegarians²,

Islam³

et al. 2017

OJPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Misinformation on interactive Knowledge Exchange Social Websites (KESWs) is concerning since it can influence Internet users' health behaviors, especially during an infectious disease outbreak. Objective: The present study seeks to examine the accuracy and characteristics of health information posted to a Knowledge Exchange Social Website (KESW). Methods: A sample of 204 answers to Ebola questions were extracted and rated for accuracy. Multiple logistic regression modeling was used to examine whether answer characteristics (best answer, professional background, statistical information, source disclosed, link, and word count) predicted accuracy. Results: Overall, only 27.0% of the posted answers were rated as "accurate". Accuracy varied across question topics with between 11.8% -45.5% of answers being rated as accurate. When Yahoo Answers' "best answers" were examined, the overall accuracy was substantially higher, with 80.0% of "best answers" being rated as accurate compared to 16.0% of all other answers. Conclusion: There is need for tools to help Internet users navigate health information posted on these dynamic user-generated knowledge exchange social websites.

show abstract

Quality of information about maxillofacial trauma on the Internet

Cited by 24 publications

References 15 publications

Available patient-centered Internet information on peri-implantitis. Can our patients understand it?

Available patient-centered Internet information on peri-implantitis. Can our patients understand it?

Web‐based information on orthodontic clear aligners: a qualitative and readability assessment

Accuracy of Ebola Information in a Knowledge Exchange Social Website (KESW)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About