Assessment of quality and readability of web-based knowledge about gummy smile: An infodemiology study.

This study assesses the quality and readability of Arabic online information about orthodontic pain. With the increasing reliance on the internet for health information, especially among Arabic speakers, it's critical to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of available content. Our methodology involved a systematic search using the Arabic term for (Orthodontic Pain) in Google, Bing, and Yahoo. This search yielded 193,856 results, from which 74 websites were selected based on predefined criteria, excluding duplicates, scientific papers, and non-Arabic content. For quality assessment, we used the DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the Health on the Net (HON) code. Readability was evaluated using the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scores. Results indicated that none of the websites received the HONcode seal. The DISCERN assessment showed median total scores of 14.96 (± 5.65), with low overall quality ratings. In JAMA benchmarks, currency was the most achieved aspect, observed in 45 websites (60.81%), but none met all four criteria simultaneously. Readability scores suggested that the content was generally understandable, with a median FKGL score of 6.98 and a median SMOG score of 3.98, indicating middle school-level readability. This study reveals a significant gap in the quality of Arabic online resources on orthodontic pain, highlighting the need for improved standards and reliability. Most websites failed to meet established quality criteria, underscoring the necessity for more accurate and trustworthy health information for Arabic-speaking patients.

PurposeTransjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure is an established procedure carried out by interventional radiologists to achieve portal decompression and to manage the complications of portal hypertension. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of information available online for TIPS procedure.MethodsWebsites were identified using the search terms “TIPS procedure”, “TIPSS procedure”, “transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedure”, with the first 25 pages from the three most popular search engines (Google, Bing and Yahoo) being selected for evaluation with a total of 225. Each Website was grouped by authorship into one of five categories: (1) Physician, (2) Academic, (3) For-profit, (4) Non-profit (including government and public health), or (5) Other (discussion/social media). Readability of each Website was assessed using the Flesch-Reading Ease score, Flesch–Kincaid grade level, Gunning-Fog Index, Coleman–Liau and SMOG index. Quality was calculated using the DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and the presence of Health on the Net (HON) code certification.ResultsAfter disregarding duplicate and non-accessible Websites a total of 81 were included. The mean DISCERN score assessing the quality of information provided by Websites was “good” (59.3 ± 10.2) with adherence to the JAMA Benchmark being 54.3%. Websites with HON-code certification were statistically significantly higher in terms of DISCERN (p = 0.034) and JAMA scores (p = 0.003) compared to HON-code negative sites. The readability scores of Websites ranged from 10 to 12th grade across calculators. Thirty-two out of the 81 Websites were targeted towards patients (39.5%), 46 towards medical professionals (56.8%) and 3 were aimed at neither (3.7%). The medical professional aimed Websites were statistically significantly more difficulty to read across all readability formulas (all p < 0.001).ConclusionWhile quality of online information available to patients is “good”, the average readability for information on the internet for TIPS is set far above the recommended 7th-grade level. Academic Websites were of the highest quality, yet most challenging for the general public to read. These findings call for the production of high-quality and comprehensible content around TIPS procedure, where physicians can reliably direct their patients for information.

BackgroundWeb-based information on dental caries in Arabic remains poorly understood. This study aimed to assess the quality and readability of web-based information about dental caries in Arabic.MethodsThe first 100 websites in Arabic about dental caries were retrieved from Google and Bing using common terms. The websites were classified and evaluated for quality based on the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, the DISCERN tool, and the presence of the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode). Readability was assessed using online readability indexes.ResultsA total of 102 Arabic websites were included. The JAMA benchmark score was low (m = 0.36, SD = 0.56), with 67.7% failing to meet any of the JAMA criteria. The DISCERN total score mean was 37.68 (SD = 7.99), with a majority (67.65%) of moderate quality. None of the websites had the HONcode. Readability was generally good, with 52.94% of websites having a Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) < 7, 91.18% having a Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) < 7, and 85.29% having a Flesch reading ease (FRE) score ≥ 80. There was a positive correlation between JAMA and DISCERN scores (p < 0.001). DISCERN scores were positively correlated with the number of words (p < 0.001) and sentences (p = 0.004) on the websites. However, JAMA or DISCERN scores were not correlated with FKGL, SMOG, or FRE scores (p > 0.05).ConclusionsThe quality of Arabic dental caries websites was found to be low, despite their readability. Efforts are needed to introduce more reliable sources for discussing dental caries and treatment options on sites aimed at Arabic populations.

BackgroundEarly orthodontic intervention during the primary or mixed dentition phase can effectively address malocclusion, mitigate detrimental oral habits, and enhance long-term oral and psychosocial outcomes. Although the American Association of Orthodontists recommends initiating orthodontic assessments for children at age seven, most caregivers consult the internet for information. The quality, reliability, and readability of Arabic-language internet sources regarding early orthodontic treatment remain deficient. This study aimed to assess Arabic websites on early orthodontic treatment in children using validated quality and readability instruments.MethodsIn October 2024, a Google search (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) was conducted using four Arabic search terms equivalent to “early orthodontic treatment in children.” The eligible websites were classified into different categories based on specialization, organizational affiliation, material type, and presentation style. Website quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the Health on the Net (HON) Code. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) indices. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis, with p ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant.ResultsThe initial 200 search results were screened, resulting in 63 eligible sites. The DISCERN assessment indicated that Arabic-language websites concerning early orthodontic treatment exhibited moderate overall quality. The findings from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark analysis reinforce these conclusions, with only six (9.5%) websites meeting all four items. None of the included websites was HONcode-certified. University-affiliated websites achieved significantly higher DISCERN and JAMA benchmark scores than commercial or nonprofit websites (p ≤ 0.05). All websites demonstrated high readability (mean FRES > 80), with university-affiliated content written at the most accessible level (p = 0.001).ConclusionsArabic websites on early orthodontic treatment generally display high readability and moderate informational quality. Nonetheless, major gaps remain in authorship transparency, source citations, and the disclosure of conflicts of interest. Increasing government participation and standardizing transparency practices are essential to ensure reliable, evidence-based Arabic orthodontic content for caregivers and patients.

Despite the widespread availability of online information about dental veneers, there is a lack of data on the quality and readability of these resources. The aim of this study was to assess the quality and readability of patient-oriented online information on dental veneers. This study conducted a thorough web search utilizing Google, Yahoo, and Bing search engines to identify English-language websites offering information on dental veneers. The quality of the websites was assessed using DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and Health on the Net Code (HONcode) tools. The readability of the websites was evaluated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) metrics. Out of a total of 195 websites included in the study, only 8 websites obtained a high overall DISCERN score, representing 2.4% of dental clinic (DC) and 14.8% of nonprofit organization (NPO) websites. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] of the overall score of DISCERN was significantly higher for NPO websites [55.5 (13)] compared to DC websites [42 (13)] and commercial entity (CE) websites [36.25 (5.5); p < 0.001]. Up to 15, 63, and 70% of NPO, DC, and CE websites, respectively, did not report any of the four JAMA criteria. Only seven websites (all NPOs) showed an active Health on the Net (HONs) Code certificate. All readability indicators confirmed easier texts on the NPO websites. The quality of the English web-based health information on dental veneers seems suboptimal. Nonprofit organization websites offer higher quality, more reliable, and readable content compared to DC and CE websites. Online dental veneer information is generally of poor quality, with NPO websites offering the most reliable and readable content. Clinicians should direct patients to trustworthy NPO resources for accurate information. How to cite this article: Alqutaibi AY, Alharbi AT, Alassaf MS, et al. Assessment of Quality and Readability of Online Patient-centered Information on Dental Veneers: An Infodemiological Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(11):1060-1066.

Assessing the Quality and Readability of Online Resources for Plantar Fasciitis

BackgroundEndodontic microsurgery (apicectomy) can be considered in cases of persistent infection that is resistant to conventional root canal treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of the available online information regarding the apicectomy procedure in Arabic.MethodsOnline search on the three most commonly used websites (Google, Yahoo, and Bing) using one keyword. The first 100 websites from each search were analyzed for quality and readability using DISCERN instrument scores, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, the Health On the Net (HON) seal, Flesch Reading Ease Scores (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index.ResultsSearching using the Arabic translation for "root end resection surgery" revealed 349,900 websites. Following the inclusion criteria, 31 websites were selected and evaluated in this study. The selected websites belonged to either non-profit organizations or commercial websites. The quality of most of the selected websites received a moderate score (83.9%) using the DISCERN tool. None of the selected websites obtained the HON seal. Quality evaluation using the JAMA benchmarks revealed that currency was the most achieved item (45.2%), followed by authorship (22.6%). Evaluation of the readability of the selected websites using the FRES, FKGL, and SMOG showed that the included websites were considered readable.ConclusionAlthough the included websites were readable, the quality of the websites was moderate. There is an urgent need to create more trustworthy and readable websites explaining the different endodontic treatments.

This study aimed to evaluate the quality, content, and readability of top‐listed websites on intravenous (IV) iron. We conducted online searches for the term “iron infusion” using Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The search term was determined based on Google Trends data for March 2025. Five gynecologists independently reviewed the websites using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and Abbott's Scale. Credibility and readability were further assessed using the Health on the Net (HON) Foundation Code of Conduct Certification, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Flesch–Kincaid Read Ease formula (FRES). A total of 25 websites were included. The mean DISCERN score was moderate (2.9 ± 0.9 out of 5), with only three websites (12%) providing excellent quality information. Seven (28%) websites were classified as having poor to very poor quality information. The mean JAMA score was low (2.1 ± 1.3 out of 4), and only three websites (12%) met all benchmarks. The overall content score on Abbott's scale was low (45.4 ± 16.1 out of 106). The average authorship score (2.1 ± 1.2 out of 3) and esthetics rating (5.4 ± 1.2 out of 10) were moderate. Notably, 21 (84%) websites were not certified by the HONcode. Readability levels were poor, as reflected by the FRES (38.1 ± 16.9 out of 100), the FKGL (equivalent grade, 12.4 ± 2.8), and the SMOG (equivalent grade, 12.7 ± 2.4). Although information on IV iron is widely available online, its overall quality and content are generally poor and not easily accessible to the public. This underscores the opportunity for knowledge translation efforts aimed at developing online resources that are both accurate and understandable.

Introduction Living kidney transplantation from donors bearing no genetic or emotional relationship with the recipient, is known as unspecified kidney donation (UKD). UKD can create multiple living donor transplantation opportunities and shorten the national waiting list for cadaveric organs. Consequently, the UK Living Donor Kidney Transplantation 2020 Strategy, has prioritised maximising UKDs. The Internet has an established role in raising awareness, offering support, and potentially influencing the decision for or against UKD. This is the first study assessing the quality and readability of online material related to UKD. Method Google was used to search for the following terms: ‘kidney donation’ and one of ‘unspecified’, ‘altruistic’, ‘non-directed’, ‘anonymous’ or ‘good Samaritan’ as well as ‘giving or donating a kidney to a stranger’. Two independent assessors reviewed the top 100 websites and assessed their quality using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria, the DISCERN instrument and HONcode (Health on the Net Code) certification. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) scores. Results Only 6% of websites displayed a HONcode stamp. The mean (± SD) JAMA and DISCERN scores of 1.96 (±1.00) and 32.34 (±11.19) respectively, indicate poor quality. The mean (± SD) FRE, FKG and SMOG scores of 52.92 (±13.62), 10.60 (±2.72) and 9.64 (±2.22), respectively, reveal poor readability. Conclusions Transplant centres and medical organisations should prioritise improving the standards of online material on UKD. This enables informed and ethical decision-making when attempting to expand the living donor pool.

This study aimed to assess the quality and availability of Arabic-language internet-based information on alveolar osteitis or dry socket.The present cross-sectional study included the first 50 websites that appeared through Bing, Google, and Yahoo search engines for the terms alveolar osteitis or dry socket or alveolitis to evaluate the content, quality, and readability of the available Arabic information. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria for website analysis, the Health on the Net (HON), and the DISCERN instrument were used to evaluate the quality of the online material. Three metrics were used to evaluate the readability: Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Flesch Reading Ease (FRES) scores.Based on affiliation, dental/medical centers have the highest representation, followed by nonprofit organizations. Visuals like images are moderately used. The reliability DISCREN domain scores indicated generally poor balance in the materials, though relevance is a notable strength. Overall rating (Q16) revealed that the materials are rated as moderately useful overall with relatively low variability (mean: 2.93; standard deviation [SD]: 0.776). Governmental/university websites excel in meeting the JAMA benchmarks. Dental/medical centers and nonprofit organizations showed better overall JAMA performance than commercial websites. According to the FRES scale, the majority of websites are written in a simple, accessible manner, suitable for general users. Most websites offer moderate-quality information (mean = 38.19; SD = 9.035 [range: 22–56]).Most websites had medium-quality data on dry socket without achieving high reliability or usability or treatment risk by the majority of websites with nonprofits websites leading in this regard, followed by dental/medical centers.

ObjectivesTo investigate the quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction using a Google search.Materials and methodsThe results of a Google search for “erectile dysfunction treatment” were reviewed. Webpages that contained written information on erectile dysfunction except those containing scientific publications and paywall protected webpages were included in further analysis. Typographic and treatment information were recorded. Readability was assessed using the Fleisch‐Kincaid grade level, the Gunning‐Fog index, the Coleman‐Liau index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Website quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and presence of Health on the net (HON) code certification. Website typography, discussed treatment types, readability scores, and quality measures were reported. Parametric and nonparametric statistical tests were used to compare the data as appropriate dependent on the normality of data.ResultsEighty‐one webpages were included. Urologists and hospitals were the most common producers with 15 (18%) each. Seventy‐four (91%) webpages contained specific information on treatment for erectile dysfunction and 15 (19%) contained advertisements. Seventeen (21%) webpages were HON code certified. The median DISCERN score was 35 (IQR 26.5‐44) out of 80. The mean combined readability score was 12.32 (SD 1.91). The median JAMA benchmark score was 1 (IQR 1‐2) out of 4. Google rank had a small negative correlation with DISCERN score (τ = −0.16, P = .036). HON code certified webpages had higher DISCERN scores (median of 44 [IQR 35‐58.5] vs 32.5 [IQR 25.25‐42.25], U = 832, Z = 6561, P < .001). A linear regression was used to predict DISCERN score based on meeting each JAMA benchmark criterion (F(2, 78) = 22.7, P < .001) R2 = 0.368, P < .001. Within this model the effects of meeting attribution (β = 11.09) and currency (β = 8.79) criterion were significant.ConclusionsThe quality of online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction is generally poor. However, easy to identify markers of quality like HON code certification, or meeting JAMA benchmark criterion for attribution and currency may help patients to navigate to better quality online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction. Webpages are written at senior high school level, above any recommendations for patient medical information. Health professionals should use validated instruments to assess the quality of online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction prior to publication to improve their utility for patients.

OBJECTIVE: Orofacial granulomatosis (OFG) is a relatively rare entity. The information pertaining to it is accessible to patients and care-givers on the internet in a scarce quantity. The aims of the current study were to evaluate quality, readability, understandability and actionability of information regarding the disease-orofacial granulomatosis-available to the public on the internet. The purpose of the study was to evaluate ease of access and understandability of language available for individuals affected by OFG. Although the incidence of the disease is very low in Pakistan, patients with symptoms of OFG rarely report to clinics due to social stigma. METHODOLOGY: A vivid selection process was chosen for the study. The study was conducted online on 'google scholar' website. Four different search terms were used 'ofg disease', 'orofacial granulomatosis', 'cheilitis granulomatosa' and 'Melkersson Rosenthal Syndrome' to seek information on orofacial granulomatosis. All of this was done during July, 2020 to October 2020. The first 100 results from each term were shortlisted and evaluated further. Exclusion criteria was used and several repetitive sites, non-functional links, sites containing content irrelevant to the search were excluded. This resulted in 58 websites relevant to the search that were then categorized according to affiliation, specialisation, content type as well as content presentation. Three grading assessments were utilized to assess the quality of this online information; the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials (PEMAT-P) and the presence of Health on the Net (HON) seal. In order to assess the readability of the content in the websites, the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) were used. RESULTS: The overall quality of online information on orofacial granulomatosis is difficult to comprehend and act upon as assessed by the PEMAT. The HON seal was visible on only 5 (9%) websites. In terms of readability, only one (2%) website was fairly easy to read. CONCLUSIONS: The online information on orofacial granulomatosis is qualitatively poor and does not serve its purpose in true sense. There is a need to devise better, high quality online readable information for patients and the public to understand. KEY WORDS: Orofacial granulomatosis, cheilitis granulomatosa, PEMAT.

Introduction Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) represents one of the most common and most aggressive forms of brain tumours with a poor prognosis. There is often uncertainty around diagnosis and prognosis amongst patients diagnosed with cancer. Most patients rely on internet to access health-related information. The aim of this study was to assess the readability and reliability of online information on GBM. Methods The terms ‘Glioblastoma’ and ‘GBM’ were used to search Google and the first 50 websites identified were screened. For each website, the quality of each website was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and the Health on the Net Foundation code certification (HON-code). The readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRE), the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) and the Gunning Fog Index (GFI). The relevant patient information by 4 International patient information websites were also assessed. Results Following screening, 31 websites met the inclusion criteria with only four websites displaying the HON-code (12.9%). The median DISCERN score was 43 (range: 17–70) corresponding to ‘fair’ quality, and the median JAMA benchmark criteria score was 1. Display of the HON-code certificate or the publication date was associated with higher quality websites. The median FRE score corresponded to ‘difficult’ to read (34.4). The median GFI score (15.9) and FKGL score (13.3) corresponded to a ‘college’ level of education reading ability. The Cancer Australia online information was the most readable website while Cancer Research UK had the highest quality information. Conclusion The readability and reliability of online information relating to GBM is inadequate. Health professionals need to provide or guide patients to information that is both readable and reliable.

Readability, quality, and timeliness of patient online health resources for urticaria

Quality and readability of online information on dental treatment for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea