Journal of neurosurgical sciences · 2020
What is the quality of the information available on the internet for patients suffering with sciatica?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mancuso-Marcello Marco, Demetriades Andreas K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Sciatica is a common neurological condition with a wide variety of clinical specialists and allied health professionals involved, and a broad range of treatment options. We sought to assess the quality of information available on the internet.
METHODS: An internet search for 'sciatica' was performed using 'Google'. The first fifty links were assessed using the DISCERN instrument, a validated questionnaire for health consumers and providers.
RESULTS: After exclusions, 44 websites were assessed. Only 37% of sites had clear aims and objectives; 79% provided relevant information; 81% did not provide clear sources of their information; 67% had no indication of when the information was compiled or updated; 63% clarified that more than one treatment option was available; only 28% described in moderate to extensive detail how the various treatment modalities might work; only 14% informed patients of potential risks and complications for each treatment. The biased and/or unbalanced websites amounted to 40%, offering greater detail about one treatment modality over others. Overall, 93% of assessed websites did not inform patients of the consequences/natural history if no treatment were undertaken; and 91% did not describe the potential impact of treatment and how it could affect quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the role that the internet plays in everyday life, information on the common and debilitating condition of sciatica is mostly of low-to-moderate quality, and with serious shortcomings. Healthcare stakeholders ought to be aware of the risks of misinformation and ensure that health-related internet website design and upkeep is guided by instruments such as DISCERN.
METHODS: An internet search for 'sciatica' was performed using 'Google'. The first fifty links were assessed using the DISCERN instrument, a validated questionnaire for health consumers and providers.
RESULTS: After exclusions, 44 websites were assessed. Only 37% of sites had clear aims and objectives; 79% provided relevant information; 81% did not provide clear sources of their information; 67% had no indication of when the information was compiled or updated; 63% clarified that more than one treatment option was available; only 28% described in moderate to extensive detail how the various treatment modalities might work; only 14% informed patients of potential risks and complications for each treatment. The biased and/or unbalanced websites amounted to 40%, offering greater detail about one treatment modality over others. Overall, 93% of assessed websites did not inform patients of the consequences/natural history if no treatment were undertaken; and 91% did not describe the potential impact of treatment and how it could affect quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the role that the internet plays in everyday life, information on the common and debilitating condition of sciatica is mostly of low-to-moderate quality, and with serious shortcomings. Healthcare stakeholders ought to be aware of the risks of misinformation and ensure that health-related internet website design and upkeep is guided by instruments such as DISCERN.