MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1308/rcsann.2024.0053

Медицинская библиотека · Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024

Assessing the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.

Almansoor Z R, Abrar R, Raja H

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to assess the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.

METHODS

The terms 'epistaxis' and 'nosebleed' were entered into Google. The first six webpages generated for each search term were screened. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index and Gunning Fog Index (GFOG). Quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Spearman's correlation between quality and readability was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 37 websites met the inclusion criteria. The mean and 95% confidence intervals for FRES, FKGL, SMOG and GFOG were 58.9 (55.3-62.5), 9.65 (8.74-10.6), 9.18 (8.57-9.8) and 12.5 (11.5-13.5), respectively. The DISCERN score was 34.3 (32.0-36.5). Weak negative correlation was noted between DISCERN and FRES (rs = -0.15, p = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Online information on epistaxis is generally of poor quality and low readability.

Для цитирования: Almansoor Z R, Abrar R, Raja H. Assessing the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2024. DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2024.0053.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.