Abstract
Objective
This study aims to evaluate the quality and readability of online resources on keratoconus
treatment.
Methods
A Google.com search was conducted on August 9, 2020; 32 web sites were selected for
analysis. Popularity was assessed by Google and Alexa rank. The quality of web sites
was analyzed using the quality criteria for consumer health information (DISCERN)
tool, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark, and the Health On the Net Code of Conduct Certification (HONcode). The
readability of the web sites was assessed using the Fleschwebr hea Reading Ease, the
Automated Readability Index, and the Fleschted Readability
Results
The JAMA benchmark scores, unlike the DISCERN scores, were correlated with the Google and
Alexa rank. One web site (3.1%) met all the JAMA benchmark criteria, and 3 (9.3%) others had HONcode certification. The median DISCERN
score was 33 (range, 29.6–43.1; maximum possible, 80). Rnib.org.uk scored the highest
at 57 (71.0%). The mean Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease score (52.9 ± 7.1) corresponded
to uk" n DIdifficult to read.” Thirty-one web sites (96.8%) had a Flesch–Kincaid Grade
higher than the American Medical Association recommendation of sixth grade level.
The median Automated Readability Index score was 7 (range, 6.2–7.3).
Conclusion
The majority of online information currently available on keratoconus treatment is
complex and highly variable. Rnib.org.uk is the best currently available source. Clinicians
should inform patients on how to assess the credibility of online information and
recommend suitable information sources.
Résumé
Objectif
La présente étude visait à évaluer la qualité et la lisibilité des ressources en ligne
sur le traitement d'un kératocône.
Méthodes
On a procédé à une recherche sur google.com le 9 août 2020; 32 sites Web ont été retenus
en vue de notre analyse. Le degré de popularité de chaque site a été mesuré en fonction
de son rang sur Google et Alexa. L'outil DISCERN (qui permet de mesurer la qualité
des renseignements sur la santé à l'intention des consommateurs), les critères de
référence du Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) et la certification HONcode (Health on the Net Code of Conduct Certification) ont servi à mesurer la qualité des sites Web. Le degré de lisibilité des sites a
été mesuré à l'aide de la formule de lisibilité de Flesch-Kincaid, de l'indice de
lisibilité automatique et du test de lisibilité en fonction du niveau scolaire de
Flesch-Kincaid.
Résultats
Contrairement aux scores DISCERN, il a été possible d’établir une corrélation entre
les scores de référence du JAMA et le rang du site sur Google et Alexa. Un seul site (3,1 %) répondait à tous les
critères de référence du JAMA, tandis que 3 autres sites (9,3 %) avaient obtenu la certification HONcode. Le score
DISCERN médian était de 33 (fourchette : 29,6–43,1; score maximum possible : 80).
C'est le site rnib.org.uk qui a obtenu le score le plus élevé, soit 57 (71,0 %). Le
score moyen selon la formule de lisibilité de Flesch-Kincaid (52,9 ± 7,1) correspondait
au score « difficile à lire » (selon les normes de la Grande-Bretagne). Le score sur
le test de lisibilité en fonction du niveau scolaire de Flesch-Kincaid de 31 sites
(96,8 %) était plus élevé que ce que recommande l'American Medical Association, soit
la sixième année du primaire. Le score médian de l'indice de lisibilité automatique
se chiffrait à 7 (fourchette : 6,2–7,3).
Conclusion
La majorité des données sur le traitement d'un kératocône que l'on trouve actuellement
sur Internet sont complexes et très variables. Le site rnib.org.uk est, pour le moment,
le meilleur site sur le sujet. Les médecins doivent enseigner à leurs patients comment
mesurer la crédibilité des données obtenues en ligne et leur recommander des sources
sûres.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Canadian Journal of OphthalmologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Keratoconus: a review.Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2010; 33: 157-166
- Surv Ophthalmol. 1998; 42: 297-319
- Epidemiology of keratoconus.Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013; 61: 382-383
- A review of keratoconus: diagnosis, pathophysiology, and genetics.Surv Ophthalmol. 2017; 62: 770-783
- Updates on managements for keratoconus.J Curr Ophthalmol. 2018; 30: 110-124
- Keratoconus treatment algorithm.Ophthalmol Ther. 2017; 6: 245-262
- Management of keratoconus: current scenario.Br J Ophthalmol. 2011; 95: 1044-1050
- Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review.JAMA. 2002; 287: 2691-2700
- Nov. 5, 2019https://news.itu.int/measuring-digital-development-facts-figures-2019/(Accessed May 6, 2020)Date: Nov. 5, 2019
- International Telecommunication Union. The world in 2009: ICT facts and figures.2009 (Geneva: ITU) (Accessed May 6, 2020)
- Information from the internet and the doctor-patient relationship: the patient perspective—a qualitative study.BMC Fam Pract. 2007; 8: 47
- The doctor as the second opinion and the internet as the first.in: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New York2009: 2489-2498
- Informed patients and the internet: a mediated context for consultations with health professionals.J Health Psychol. 2006; 11: 269-282
- Patients’ use of the internet for medical information.J Gen Intern Med. 2002; 17: 180-185
- Health information on the internet: gold mine or minefield?.Can Fam Physician. 2014; 60: 407-408
- Internet as a source of health information in ophthalmology.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45: 1403
- Internet use by ophthalmology patients.Br J Ophthalmol. 2010; 94: 378-379
- Association between internet use and decision-making preference in older adults.Gerontechnology. 2016; 14: 97
- The role of internet resources in health decision-making: a qualitative study.Digit Health. 2019; 52055207619888073
Alexa - Competitive Analysis, Marketing Mix, and Website Traffic. available at https://alexa.com/siteinfo. Accessed May 6 2020
- Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware.JAMA. 1997; 277: 1244-1245
- DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices.J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999; 53: 105-111
- Use of the DISCERN tool for evaluating web searches in childhood epilepsy.Epilepsy Behav. 2014; 41: 119-121
- Evaluation of online health information on clubfoot using the DISCERN tool.J Pediatr Orthop B. 2014; 23: 135-138
- Learning to parent from Google? Evaluation of available online health evidence for parents of preterm infants requiring neonatal intensive care.Health Informatics J. 2019; 25: 1265-1277
- The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health websites.Comput Biol Med. 1998; 28: 603-610
- Health On the Net. Health On the Net promotes transparent and reliable health information online through HONcode certification.Health On the Net, Geneva. 2020; (n.d.) (Accessed May 6)
How are Alexa's traffic rankings determined? Alexa Support, n.d., https://support.alexa.com/hc/en-us/articles/200449744-how-are-alexa-s-traffic-rankings-determined. Accessed 6 May 2020.
- A new readability yardstick.J Appl Psychol. 1948; 32: 221-233
- Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel.Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida, Millington, TN1975 (Accessed May 6, 2020)
- Automated readability index.AMRL-TR Aerosp Med Res Lab. 1967; : 1-14
- Readability assessment of online patient education material on congestive heart failure.Adv Prev Med. 2017; 2017: 1-8
Weiss BD. Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. American Medical Association and American Medical Foundation, Chicago, Illinois, 2003:34.
- DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices.J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999; 53: 105-111
- How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web?.Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. Br Med J. 2002; 324: 573-577
- Exploring the role of health literacy in the evaluation of online health information: insights from a mixed-methods study.Patient Educ Couns. 2016; 99: 1017-1025
Discover How Google Search Works, Google Search, https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/. Accessed May 6, 2020.
- Abnormal visual function outside the area of atrophy defined by short-wavelength fundus autofluorescence in Stargardt disease.Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci. 2020; 61: 36
- Assessment of the quality, content, and readability of freely available online information for patients regarding diabetic retinopathy.JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019; 137: 1240-1245
- Quality of patient health information on the internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape.Australas Med J. 2014; 7: 24-28
- Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review.JAMA. 2002; 287: 2691-2700
- (Health On the Net Foundation)2017 (Accessed May 6, 2020)
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 19, 2021
Accepted:
September 15,
2021
Received in revised form:
August 21,
2021
Received:
November 30,
2020
Footnotes
Jesse Panthagani and Hisham Hamze are joint first authors.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 Canadian Ophthalmological Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
