A Critical Analysis of the Information Available Online for Ménière's Disease.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
Patients increasingly rely on online resources for medical information; however, the Internet is unregulated and prone to misinformation. This study analyzes the reliability, quality, and readability of websites for Ménière's disease.
STUDY
DESIGN
A Google search was performed using keywords Ménière's disease. The first 5 pages (50 results) were reviewed. Websites were sorted into 5 categories: academic institutions, government agencies, professional organizations, medical information websites, and miscellaneous. The reliability, quality, and readability of each website were evaluated using the DISCERN instrument and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). DISCERN assesses reliability and quality by scoring 15 questions on a scale from 1 (low) to 3 (high). The reliability score emphasizes clear objectives and sources, as well as lack of bias, whereas the quality score emphasizes information on treatment options. The FKGL of each website was calculated using a formula to determine the equivalent US grade reading level.
SETTING
Ambulatory.
SUBJECTS: None.
RESULTS
Forty-two websites were analyzed. Academic institutions were the most common (n = 13, 31%) but scored the lowest using DISCERN at 1.75 ± 0.13. Medical information websites scored highest at 2.24 ± 0.09 (P = .024 compared to academic institutions). The average FKGL of all websites was 10.12 ± 0.57 with medical information websites being the easiest to read at 8.84 ± 0.83. Only 5 (13%) of websites scored below the eighth-grade reading level.
CONCLUSIONS
Most top online search results for Ménière's disease are deficient in quality and readability. Medical information websites are generally the most reliable and easy to read.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.