The Quality and Content of Internet-Based Information on Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Requires Improvement: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the quality and content of internet-based information available for some of the most common orthopaedic sports medicine terms. Methods: A search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines was performed. All Englishlanguage literature published from 2010 to 2020 discussing information quality pertaining to orthopaedic sports medicine terms was included. Outcomes included the search engines used, number and type of websites evaluated, platform, and quality scoring metrics. Descriptive statistics are presented. Results: This review includes 21 studies. Of these, 3 evaluated both the upper and lower extremity. Twelve focused on either the upper or lower extremity, most commonly rotator cuff tears (3 of 12) and/or anterior cruciate ligament pathologies (7 of 12). The most common engines were Google (18 of 21), Bing (16 of 21), Yahoo (16 of 21), YouTube (3 of 21), Ask (3 of 21), and AOL (2 of 21). The average number of media files assessed per study was 87 AE 55. Website quality was assessed with DISCERN (7 of 21), Flesch-Kincaid (9 of 21), Health on the Net (7 of 21), and/or Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark (7 of 21) scores. YouTube was evaluated with Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark scores (1.74 AE 1.00). Image quality was reported in 2 studies and varied with search terminology. Conclusions: The results of this systematic review suggest that physicians should improve the quality of online information and encourage patients to access credible sources when conducting their own research. Clinical Relevance: Doctors can and should play an active role in closing the gap between the level of health literacy of their patients and that of most common online resources.

Evaluation of information from artificial intelligence on rotator cuff repair surgery

“…Finally, in a systematic review of online orthopedic sports medicine information quality assessments, Schwarz et al found similar results, with a mean DISCERN score of 40.55 and FKGL of 10.24. 33 The open AI natural language processing model evaluated in this study performed better than the average website found through search engines and at a similar level to websites affiliated with academic institutions.…”

“…The DISCERN instrument is a valid and reliable quality assessment tool of written patient information about management options for a medical problem commonly used in the literature. 7 , 9 , 22 , 33 DISCERN was funded by The British Library and the National Health Service Research and Development Programme and produced by a panel consisting of both clinical experts and nonphysician consumer health literature experts. 7 It comprises three sections: 8 questions on reliability, 7 questions on treatment information and lastly an additional overall quality rating.…”

Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Obtain Information From Low-Quality Sources Online and Are Most Interested in Conservative Treatment and Expected Recovery

“…A commonly encountered hurdle in relaying complex medical knowledge to patients online is in either low-quality of available materials, or high-quality materials with complicated terminology. 30 , 31 The results of this study show that >65% of websites found by patients searching online about FAI are hosted by groups composed partly of physicians. Patients continue to use online resources at an increasing rate and are placing more trust in these resources than before; therefore, providers must ensure the content they and their practices provide online are high quality and written for a medically lay audience.…”

Proximal Humerus Fracture: An Evaluation of the Readability and Value of Web-Based Knowledge

“…Inconsistencies in the authorship groupings on both the DISCERN score and JAMA benchmark criteria were noted; nevertheless, physician-registered and academic online sites offered better-quality information, followed by other groups. It was disturbing that the mean JAMA grade was within the standard (2.30) similar to systemic reviews about orthopaedic sports medicine (2.00), indicating poor information quality [18]. Apart from the JAMA tool focusing on numerous characteristics of the Internet other than the content of which users might not be aware, knowledge about these qualities is good from the point of view of the scientific community.…”