Ophthalmic research · 2026
A Systematic Quality Assessment of Online Resources on Keratoconus using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (mEQIP).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Cartabellotta Antonio, Taloni Andrea, Adamo Ginevra Giovanna, Pellegrini Marco, Scorcia Vincenzo, Mura Marco, Giannaccare Giuseppe
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To systematically rate the quality of online educational websites focused on keratoconus.
METHODS: Google, Yahoo and Bing were queried for the keywords "Keratoconus", "Keratoconus treatment", "Keratoconus surgery". For each keyword, the first 50 websites were assessed for quality of information using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patient (mEQIP) scale. English websites intended for non-professional public were included while forums, blogs and scientific articles were excluded. Websites with a score above the 75th percentile were labelled as high-score, while those below were classified as low-score. Statistically significant values were considered if p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Overall, 119 eligible websites were included and classified in 5 groups based on their source: healthcare portals (n=36, 30.25%), practitioners (n=48, 40.34%), hospitals (n=21, 17.65%), professional societies (n=13, 10.92%) and encyclopedias (n=1, 0.84%). The mean mEQIP score was 20.03 ŷ 4.13. Websites with a score of 23 or higher were labelled as high score, websites below 23 were classified as low score. High-score websites (27.73%) provided more comprehensive details about treatments, medical procedures, benefits, and risks, and were supported by scientific references. Conversely, low-score websites (72.27%) often lacked essential information and quantitative data. There was no significant difference in the quality of information for webpages published before and after COVID-19 pandemic (P = .79), or between different types of sources (P = .80).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study indicates moderate quality of online information regarding keratoconus and underscores the need for improvements of online health resources.
METHODS: Google, Yahoo and Bing were queried for the keywords "Keratoconus", "Keratoconus treatment", "Keratoconus surgery". For each keyword, the first 50 websites were assessed for quality of information using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patient (mEQIP) scale. English websites intended for non-professional public were included while forums, blogs and scientific articles were excluded. Websites with a score above the 75th percentile were labelled as high-score, while those below were classified as low-score. Statistically significant values were considered if p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Overall, 119 eligible websites were included and classified in 5 groups based on their source: healthcare portals (n=36, 30.25%), practitioners (n=48, 40.34%), hospitals (n=21, 17.65%), professional societies (n=13, 10.92%) and encyclopedias (n=1, 0.84%). The mean mEQIP score was 20.03 ŷ 4.13. Websites with a score of 23 or higher were labelled as high score, websites below 23 were classified as low score. High-score websites (27.73%) provided more comprehensive details about treatments, medical procedures, benefits, and risks, and were supported by scientific references. Conversely, low-score websites (72.27%) often lacked essential information and quantitative data. There was no significant difference in the quality of information for webpages published before and after COVID-19 pandemic (P = .79), or between different types of sources (P = .80).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study indicates moderate quality of online information regarding keratoconus and underscores the need for improvements of online health resources.