Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2017
Quality and readability of internet-based information on halitosis.
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.
Jo Jung Hwan, Kim Eui Joo, Kim Ji Rak, Kim Moon Jong, Chung Jin Woo, Park Ji Woon
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate quality and readability of Internet-based information on halitosis.
STUDY DESIGN: An Internet search through 3 engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing) was done with the terms ("bad breath," "halitosis," "oral malodor," "foul breath," "mouth malodor," "breath malodor," "fetor ex ore," "fetor oris," "ozostomia," and "stomatodysodia"). The first 50 websites from each engine resulting from each search term were screened. Included websites were evaluated using Health on the Net (HON) criteria, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, DISCERN, Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level.
RESULTS: A total of 101 websites were included. HON, DISCERN, EQIP, and FRE score were 42.9%, 37.6%, 37.4%, and 51.9% of the maximum score, respectively. Fewer than 50% of sites displayed attribution, disclosure, and currency according to JAMA benchmarks. HON score, DISCERN score, and EQIP score had significant correlation with each other and were significantly higher in sites displaying the HON seal.
CONCLUSION: The current quality and readability of informative websites on halitosis are generally low and poorly organized. Clinicians should be able to assess the Internet-based information on halitosis, as well as give accurate advice and guide patients concerning this issue.
STUDY DESIGN: An Internet search through 3 engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing) was done with the terms ("bad breath," "halitosis," "oral malodor," "foul breath," "mouth malodor," "breath malodor," "fetor ex ore," "fetor oris," "ozostomia," and "stomatodysodia"). The first 50 websites from each engine resulting from each search term were screened. Included websites were evaluated using Health on the Net (HON) criteria, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, DISCERN, Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level.
RESULTS: A total of 101 websites were included. HON, DISCERN, EQIP, and FRE score were 42.9%, 37.6%, 37.4%, and 51.9% of the maximum score, respectively. Fewer than 50% of sites displayed attribution, disclosure, and currency according to JAMA benchmarks. HON score, DISCERN score, and EQIP score had significant correlation with each other and were significantly higher in sites displaying the HON seal.
CONCLUSION: The current quality and readability of informative websites on halitosis are generally low and poorly organized. Clinicians should be able to assess the Internet-based information on halitosis, as well as give accurate advice and guide patients concerning this issue.