Assessment of the Quality and Readability of Online Resources on Corneal Transplantation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality and readability of corneal transplant websites.

METHODS

We examined internet resources related to corneal transplantation. The search terms "cornea transplantation," "keratoplasty," "keratoprothesis," and "eye transplantation" were searched on www.google.com. A total of 200 websites were scanned, with 50 websites for each search term. In the final evaluation, 113 websites were included in the study. DISCERN and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scales were used to evaluate the websites' quality. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) were used to evaluate the readability of the information. The presence of the Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONCode) certification on websites was examined in terms of quality.

RESULTS

The total DISCERN score was 42.47 ± 17.06, and the score for the JAMA was 1.58 ± 1.52. The FKGL and SMOG scores were found to be 9.19 ± 2.08 and 8.20 ± 5.23, respectively. Most of the websites we examined related to corneal transplantation were profit websites. These websites had low JAMA and DISCERN scores but relatively high readability levels. They were sites that provided low-quality information and had more financial bias and conflict of interest. Journal and book websites were found to have higher readability scores. Journal and book-sourced websites with higher FKGL and SMOG scores were more difficult to read.

CONCLUSION

Most of the websites exhibit financial bias, and as a result, they contain low-quality information. Online information must be more regulated for patients to easily access accurate, high-quality information.