Evaluating the quality and readability of online information on keratoconus treatment

Published:October 19, 2021DOI:



      This study aims to evaluate the quality and readability of online resources on keratoconus treatment.


      A 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


      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). 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).


      The majority of online information currently available on keratoconus treatment is complex and highly variable. is the best currently available source. Clinicians should inform patients on how to assess the credibility of online information and recommend suitable information sources.
      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 access
      One-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 to Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Romero-Jiménez M
        • Santodomingo-Rubido J
        • Wolffsohn JS.
        Keratoconus: a review.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2010; 33: 157-166
        • Keratoconus Rabinowitz YS.
        Surv Ophthalmol. 1998; 42: 297-319
        • Gokhale NS.
        Epidemiology of keratoconus.
        Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013; 61: 382-383
        • Mas Tur V
        • MacGregor C
        • Jayaswal R
        • et al.
        A review of keratoconus: diagnosis, pathophysiology, and genetics.
        Surv Ophthalmol. 2017; 62: 770-783
        • Mohammadpour M
        • Heidari Z
        • Hashemi H.
        Updates on managements for keratoconus.
        J Curr Ophthalmol. 2018; 30: 110-124
        • Andreanos KD
        • Hashemi K
        • Petrelli M
        • et al.
        Keratoconus treatment algorithm.
        Ophthalmol Ther. 2017; 6: 245-262
        • Jhanji V
        • Sharma N
        • Vajpayee RB.
        Management of keratoconus: current scenario.
        Br J Ophthalmol. 2011; 95: 1044-1050
        • Eysenbach G
        • Powell J
        • Kuss O
        • et al.
        Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review.
        JAMA. 2002; 287: 2691-2700
      1. Nov. 5, 2019 (Accessed May 6, 2020)
      2. International Telecommunication Union. The world in 2009: ICT facts and figures.
        2009 (Geneva: ITU) (Accessed May 6, 2020)
        • Stevenson FA
        • Kerr C
        • Murray E
        • et al.
        Information from the internet and the doctor-patient relationship: the patient perspective—a qualitative study.
        BMC Fam Pract. 2007; 8: 47
        • Gualtieri LN.
        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
        • Kivits J.
        Informed patients and the internet: a mediated context for consultations with health professionals.
        J Health Psychol. 2006; 11: 269-282
        • Carmo-Fonseca M
        • Mendes-Soares L
        • Campos I.
        Patients’ use of the internet for medical information.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2002; 17: 180-185
        • Tonsaker T
        • Bartlett G
        • Trpkov C.
        Health information on the internet: gold mine or minefield?.
        Can Fam Physician. 2014; 60: 407-408
        • Marjanovic B
        • Muhtaseb M
        • Ionides A.
        Internet as a source of health information in ophthalmology.
        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45: 1403
        • Narendran N
        • Amissah-Arthur K
        • Groppe M
        • et al.
        Internet use by ophthalmology patients.
        Br J Ophthalmol. 2010; 94: 378-379
        • Cajita MI
        • Whitehouse E
        • Budhathoki C
        • et al.
        Association between internet use and decision-making preference in older adults.
        Gerontechnology. 2016; 14: 97
        • Bussey LG
        • Sillence E.
        The role of internet resources in health decision-making: a qualitative study.
        Digit Health. 2019; 52055207619888073
      3. Alexa - Competitive Analysis, Marketing Mix, and Website Traffic. available at Accessed May 6 2020

        • Silberg WM
        • Lundberg GD
        • Musacchio RA.
        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
        • Charnock D
        • Shepperd S
        • Needham G
        • et al.
        DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999; 53: 105-111
        • Cerminara C
        • Santarone ME
        • Casarelli L
        • et al.
        Use of the DISCERN tool for evaluating web searches in childhood epilepsy.
        Epilepsy Behav. 2014; 41: 119-121
        • Kumar VS
        • Subramani S
        • Veerapan S
        • et al.
        Evaluation of online health information on clubfoot using the DISCERN tool.
        J Pediatr Orthop B. 2014; 23: 135-138
        • Dol J
        • Richardson B
        • Boates T
        • et al.
        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
        • Boyer C
        • Selby M
        • Scherrer JR
        • et al.
        The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health websites.
        Comput Biol Med. 1998; 28: 603-610
      4. 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)
      5. How are Alexa's traffic rankings determined? Alexa Support, n.d., Accessed 6 May 2020.

        • Flesch R.
        A new readability yardstick.
        J Appl Psychol. 1948; 32: 221-233
        • Kincaid P
        • Fishburne R
        • Rogers R
        • et al.
        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)
        • Smith EA
        • Senter RJ.
        Automated readability index.
        AMRL-TR Aerosp Med Res Lab. 1967; : 1-14
        • Kher A
        • Johnson S
        • Griffith R.
        Readability assessment of online patient education material on congestive heart failure.
        Adv Prev Med. 2017; 2017: 1-8
      6. Weiss BD. Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. American Medical Association and American Medical Foundation, Chicago, Illinois, 2003:34.

        • Charnock D
        • Shepperd S
        • Needham G
        • et al.
        DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999; 53: 105-111
        • Eysenbach G
        • Köhler C.
        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
        • Diviani N
        • van den Putte B
        • Meppelink CS
        • et al.
        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
      7. Discover How Google Search Works, Google Search, Accessed May 6, 2020.

        • Sunness JS
        • Ifrah A
        • Wolf R
        • et al.
        Abnormal visual function outside the area of atrophy defined by short-wavelength fundus autofluorescence in Stargardt disease.
        Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci. 2020; 61: 36
        • Kloosterboer A
        • Yannuzzi NA
        • Patel NA
        • et al.
        Assessment of the quality, content, and readability of freely available online information for patients regarding diabetic retinopathy.
        JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019; 137: 1240-1245
        • Fahy E
        • Hardikar R
        • Fox A
        • et al.
        Quality of patient health information on the internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape.
        Australas Med J. 2014; 7: 24-28
        • Eysenbach G
        • Powell J
        • Kuss O
        • et al.
        Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review.
        JAMA. 2002; 287: 2691-2700
        • Foundation Health On the Net
        (Health On the Net Foundation)2017 (Accessed May 6, 2020)