Journal Of The American Medical Association Criteria Research Articles

Readability and credibility evaluation of most-visited health websites based on eBizMBA and Alexa global ranking

Introduction: Online health information is one of the most important and widely used sources of information. Currently, a significant number of individuals use the internet for health-related information to learn about health, disease, health promotion, and threats to their health.Material and Methods: This research examined the top 15 health websites based on their popularity in eBizMBA and Alexa rank from January to February 2022. A total of 30 health websites (15 from each category) were evaluated in terms of credibility by the use of Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and health on the net foundation (HON) code. Also, the readability of the mentioned websites was evaluated by the use of four readability tools.Results: Most of the websites ranked by both Alexa and eBizMBA met the “Authority” and” Complementarity" criteria. When it comes to the readability of the 30 most visited health websites according to eBizMBA and Alexa analytics in the world, the analysis demonstrated that the readability of highly-ranked health websites was higher than the recommended level.Conclusion: Some of the websites had deficiencies according to the HONcode and JAMA criteria, and the average readability of the websites did not meet the gold standard. Despite the increasing use of the internet for medical information, these resources' poor quality and readability remain a barrier to informed decision-making of patients.

Quality and readability of web-based information on dental caries in Arabic: an infodemiological study

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.

YouTube Videos About Plantar Fasciitis and Calcaneal Spurs Are Insufficient and Poor Quality.

Patients frequently use YouTube to learn about their illness. For this reason, the educational and quality of YouTube videos about various diseases has been investigated. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy and quality of YouTube videos. A standard query was performed on the YouTube database using the following search terms: Plantar fasciitis, heel spur, and calcaneal spur. For each search term, the top 50 videos determined by YouTube's "relevance" according to its algorithm were evaluated (150 videos in total). After exclusion, 140 videos were included in the study. These videos were watched by 2 observers and the videos were evaluated and scored according to the Global Quality Score (GQS), DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and Plantar Fasciitis and Calcaneal Spurs Specific Score (PFSS) scoring systems. According to the JAMA criteria, 76.42% of the videos and 43.57% of the videos according to the GQS scored 2 points or less. According to DISCERN criteria, 67.15% of the videos were evaluated as very poor/poor. According to the PFSS, 83.5% of the videos were rated as poor or very poor. These findings can be interpreted as the general information content of the videos about plantar fasciitis is insufficient and their reliability and quality are low. As a result, it can be concluded that the quality and reliability of YouTube videos regarding plantar fasciitis are insufficient for patients. Universities/associations prepare videos that provide information about plantar fasciitis to patients, and that these videos are presented on certain platforms can be a solution.

Mpox (monkeypox) information on TikTok: analysis of quality and audience engagement

BackgroundOnline information on mpox (monkeypox) is not well studied. We have analysed the video content, information quality, and audience engagement of mpox-related videos on TikTok.MethodsUsing a hashtag-based searching strategy, we...

Quality and Audience Engagement of Takotsubo Syndrome-Related Videos on TikTok: Content Analysis.

BackgroundThe incidence of Takotsubo syndrome (TTS), also known as the broken heart syndrome or stress cardiomyopathy, is increasing worldwide. The understanding of its prognosis has been progressively evolving and currently appears to be poorer than previously thought, which has attracted the attention of researchers. An attempt to recognize the awareness of this condition among the general population drove us to analyze the dissemination of this topic on TikTok, a popular short-video–based social media platform. We found a considerable number of videos on TTS on TikTok; however, the quality of the presented information remains unknown.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze the quality and audience engagement of TTS-related videos on TikTok.MethodsVideos on the TikTok platform were explored on August 2, 2021 to identify those related to TTS by using 6 Chinese keywords. A total of 2549 videos were found, of which 80 met our inclusion criteria and were evaluated for their characteristics, content, quality, and reliability. The quality and reliability were rated using the DISCERN instrument and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria by 2 reviewers independently, and a score was assigned. Descriptive statistics were generated, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. Multiple linear regression was performed to evaluate the association between audience engagement and other factors such as video content, video quality, and author types.ResultsThe scores assigned to the selected video content were low with regard to the diagnosis (0.66/2) and management (0.34/2) of TTS. The evaluated videos were found to have an average score of 36.93 out of 80 on the DISCERN instrument and 1.51 out of 4 per the JAMA criteria. None of the evaluated videos met all the JAMA criteria. The quality of the relayed information varied by source (All P<.05). TTS-related videos made by health care professionals accounted for 28% (22/80) of all the evaluated videos and had the highest DISCERN scores with an average of 40.59 out of 80. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that author types that identified as health professionals (exponentiated regression coefficient 17.48, 95% CI 2.29-133.52; P=.006) and individual science communicators (exponentiated regression coefficient 13.38, 95% CI 1.83-97.88; P=.01) were significant and independent determinants of audience engagement (in terms of the number of likes). Other author types of videos, video content, and DISCERN document scores were not associated with higher likes.ConclusionsWe found that the quality of videos regarding TTS for patient education on TikTok is poor. Patients should be cautious about health-related information on TikTok. The formulation of a measure for video quality review is necessary, especially when the purpose of the published content is to educate and increase awareness on a health-related topic.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Quality, Readability, and Technical Quality of Online Information on Glaucoma

To evaluate the quality and reliability of medical information, the technical quality of the presentation of information, and the readability of informational websites that publish content on the definition, causes, symptoms, and treatment of glaucoma. A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess information published on websites with regard to glaucoma. The top 150 websites populated on a Google search using the keywords glaucoma, high intraocular pressure, and high eye pressure were chosen for evaluation. Two independent reviewers assessed quality and reliability of each website using the DISCERN, Health on the Net Code (HONcode), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria. The reviewers also evaluated technical quality by determining each website's ability to satisfy 10 unique features. Readability was assessed using the Readability Studio software (Oleander Software). Quality of information was analyzed using the DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA criteria. To assess readability, the Bormuth Cloze Mean, Bormuth Grade Placement, Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease, Coleman-Liau Index, Gunning Fog Score, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, Readability Score, Fry Estimate, Raygor Estimate, and the Overall Mean Readability metrics were used. A separate subanalysis categorized websites into institutional and private categories. Readability was poor among all websites, with most websites requiring a reading level higher than the 11th grade. The overall mean DISCERN score ± standard deviation (SD) was 3.0 ± 0.4, the mean HONcode score ± SD was 9.6 ± 1.8, and the mean JAMA score ± SD was 2.1 ± 1.1. The reviewers had moderate to excellent interrater reliability. Institutional websites (n= 39) had a higher mean DISCERN score (3.18 ± 0.33 vs. 2.95 ± 0.39, P < 0.05) and mean HONcode score (10.18 ± 1.90 vs. 9.34 ± 1.71, P < 0.05) than those of private websites (n= 111). Technical quality was higher among institutional websites (P < 0.05). An overwhelming majority of websites presented information of low quality, reliability, and readability. Institutional websites generally received higher scores than those received by private websites; however, overall scores were still substandard, which necessitates improvement of online information on glaucoma.

Paradigm shift: Beyond the COVID-19 era, is YouTube the future of education for CABG patients?

IntroductionPatients commonly use YouTube for education, and this may have increased due to COVID‐19 related restrictions on access to healthcare professionals. However, YouTube videos lack peer review and regulation. To assess patient education in the COVID‐19 era, we analyzed the quality of YouTube videos on coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.MethodsWe searched YouTube using the phrase “coronary artery bypass graft.” Two authors individually used the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), DISCERN, and Health on the Net (HON) systems, to rate the first 50 videos retrieved. Data collected for each video included; number of views, duration since upload, percentage positivity (proportion of likes relative to total likes plus dislikes), number of comments, and video author. Interobserver reliability was assessed using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Associations between video characteristics and quality were tested using linear regression or t‐tests.ResultsThe average number of views was 575,571. Average quality was poor, with mean scores of 1.93/4 (ICC 0.54) for JAMA criteria, 2.52/5 (ICC 0.78) for DISCERN criteria, and 4.04/8 (ICC 0.66) for HON criteria. Videos uploaded by surgeons scored highest overall (p < .05). No other factors demonstrated significant association with video quality.ConclusionYouTube videos on CABG surgery are of poor quality and may be inadequate for patient education. Given the complexity of the procedure and that beyond the COVID‐19 era, patients are more likely to seek education from digital sources, treating surgeons should advise of YouTube's limitations and direct patients to reliable sources of information.

Alveolar osteitis: A qualitative and readability assessment of patient information on the Internet

AbstractBackgroundData regarding the quality of online information regarding alveolar osteitis (AO) are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the quality of online information regarding AO.Materials and MethodsTwo search terms (“alveolar osteitis” and “dry socket”) were entered separately into three search engines. A qualitative assessment of the websites that satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria was carried out using the QUality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and via the presence of the Health on the Net (HON)code seal. Website readability was evaluated using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch Reading Ease Score tools. Statistical analyses were performed by GraphPad Software® (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA, U.S.).ResultsMost of the 31 assessed websites were from the United States (41.93%). The mean QUEST score was 14.10 out of a maximum 28 (SD = 4.63; 95% CI: 11.80–16.39). Eight (25.8%) websites scored three or all four JAMA benchmarks and four (12.9%) scored zero. Five (16.12%) displayed the HONcode seal. Higher QUEST scores were recorded for websites that satisfied at least three out of JAMA criteria (p &lt; 0.01; 95% CI: −13.13 to −5.215) and for websites that contained the HONcode seal (p &lt; 0.01; 95% CI: −15.000 to −5.00) compared to those that did not. The mean SMOG readability score was 8.95 (SD: 8.68; 95% CI: 8.46–9.43).ConclusionsThe online information regarding AO varies considerably. The readability scores exceed the recommended levels for written health information. The dental profession should consider the development of online resources that address the highlighted shortcomings.

Assessment of the Quality, Understandability, and Reliability of YouTube Videos as a Source of Information on Basal Cell Carcinoma: Web-Based Analysis.

BackgroundPatients with skin cancer increasingly watch online videos to acquire disease-related information. Until now, no scientific evaluation of the quality of videos available for German-speaking patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) has been performed.ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to identify and evaluate videos about BCC provided on YouTube.MethodsA video search on YouTube was conducted in July 2020, using German BCC-related keywords (eg, “Basalzellkarzinom,” “Basaliom,” “weißer hautkrebs,” and “heller hautkrebs”). The first three pages (ie, 60 videos) were searched by two independent researchers for each keyword. Two authors evaluated videos that met the predefined eligibility criteria. The quality of the information of the videos was evaluated using the DISCERN tool and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). The understandability and actionability were assessed with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V). The reliability was assessed with the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) criteria score. Subgroup differences were identified using the Kruskal-Wallis test.ResultsA total of 41 videos were included in the evaluation. The mean assessment scores were as follows: DISCERN, 3.3 (SD 0.80); GQS, 3.8 (SD 1.1); JAMA, 27.74% (SD 22.1%); understandability, 70.8% (SD 13.3%); and actionability, 45.9% (SD 43.7%). These values indicated that the videos were of medium to good quality and had good understandability, low actionability, and poor reliability. The quality of videos provided by health professionals was significantly higher than that of videos provided by laypersons.ConclusionsOptimization of health-related videos about BCC is desirable. In particular, adaptation to reliability criteria is necessary to support patient education and increase transparency.

Patient-Focused Websites Related to Postpartum Pelvic Floor Health: A DISCERN Quality Analysis.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the quality of patient-focused websites addressing postpartum pelvic floor health. The Google search engine was used to perform a search of the following 3 terms: (1) "postpartum pelvic floor (PPF)," (2) "postpartum leaking urine (PLU)," and (3) "postpartum leaking stool (PLS)." The top 20 results from each search term were evaluated using the DISCERN quality appraisal tool and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria by 2 independent researchers. Websites were also categorized by type. Cohen κ was performed to determine interrater reliability between reviewers. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate the differences in DISCERN and JAMA criteria scores. The weighted mean κ between the investigators for each search term was κ = 0.47 (range = 0.163 [PPF] to 0.759 [PLU]), suggesting moderate agreement between reviewers. There was a significant difference in mean DISCERN scores between the terms, with "postpartum leaking urine" yielding the highest mean score. When comparing DISCERN scores by category, society- and government-sponsored websites (mean = 55 ± 13) scored significantly higher than other categories. Using JAMA criteria, mean scores ranged between 1.83 and 2.83/4, but there were no significant differences between websites. The overall quality of health information available on the internet regarding postpartum pelvic health is low. Higher-quality search results are found within society- and government-sponsored websites as well as under the search term "postpartum leaking urine." It is important for health care providers to guide their patients to websites with reliable information about postpartum pelvic floor recovery.

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: A cross-sectional survey assessing the quality of information on the Internet

The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of information and readability of online content regarding medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). Three search engines were used to identify websites containing information regarding MRONJ. The content was assessed with 5 quality of information and readability tools. Statistical analyses were performed via GraphPad Software (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, Calif, United States). The Health on the Net (HONcode) seal was present in 2 of the 21 websites that satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria. The mean JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) benchmark satisfied per website was 1.619 out of 4 (standard deviation [SD]=1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.17). The mean overall Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool score was 15.29 out of a maximum 28 (SD=6.174; 95% CI, 12.48-18.1). The Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool scores of those websites that satisfied ≥3 JAMA criteria were significantly higher than those that did not (P=.01; 95% CI, -11.41 to -1.79). The readability levels of all content ranged from fairly difficult to very difficult. The information related to MRONJ on the Internet is unreliable and too difficult for the general public to read. Authors of online MRONJ information should consider use of quality of information and readability tools to ensure that reliable information is understood by those with poor health literacy skills.

How about the quality of information concerning periodontal diseases our patients are finding online?

OBJECTIVE: Analyze the websites returned by Google and Bing on periodontal disease by the JAMA criteria and the HONCode, and to evaluate the quality of the websites’ content. MATERIALS AND METHODS: “Gum disease” was searched in Brazilian Google and Bing in May 2017. The first 200 websites were analyzed by the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) criteria and the Health On the Net Foundation (HONCode) certification. The websites’ content was analyzed according to an instrument previously described in the literature. RESULTS: The JAMA scores of websites returned by Google and Bing were similar (median, 2; IQR [1, 3]). The proportion of websites with a JAMA score ≥3 was significantly higher for Google than for Bing (41% versus 29.7%, P=0.03). Journalism websites showed the highest scores in both platforms, while Dental Practices websites scored the lowest. Comparing the first 10 results of Google and Bing with the rest of the websites, there was no significant difference in the JAMA score for both platforms. Google’s content analysis showed a mean score of 34.3±18.4, while in Bing it was 39.1±18.5 (P=0.83). CONCLUSION: The online information concerning periodontal diseases in Brazilian Portuguese present low trustworthiness and low quality of disease-specific content. This issue deserves attention not only from the researchers but also from government entities and specialized institutions in order to ensure access to safe, sound and readable oral health information to Brazilian’s citizens.

Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on periodontal disease

BackgroundCurrently, the Internet seems to be a helpful tool for obtaining information about everything that we think about, including diseases, their prevention and treatment approaches. However, doubts exist regarding the quality and readability of such information. This study sought to assess the quality and readability of web-based Arabic information on periodontal disease.MethodsIn this infodemiological study, the Google, Yahoo!, and Bing search engines were searched using specific Arabic terms on periodontal disease. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were obtained. The eligible websites were categorized as commercial, health/professional, journalism, and other. The following tools were applied to assess the quality of the information on the included websites: the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the DISCERN tool. The readability was assessed using an online readability tool.ResultsOf the 300 websites, 89 were eligible for quality and readability analyses. Only two websites (2.3%) were HONcode certified. Based on the DISCERN tool, 43 (48.3%) websites had low scores. The mean score of the JAMA benchmarks was 1.6 ± 1.0, but only 3 (3.4%) websites achieved “yes” responses for all four JAMA criteria. Based on the DISCERN tool, health/professional websites revealed the highest quality of information compared to other website categories. Most of the health/professional websites revealed moderate-quality information, while 55% of the commercial websites, 66% of journalism websites, and 43% of other websites showed poor quality information. Regarding readability, most of the analyzed websites presented simple and readable written content.ConclusionsAside from readable content, Arabic health information on the analyzed websites on periodontal disease is below the required level of quality.

Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19: an infodemiological study

BackgroundThis study sought to assess the quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19.MethodsThree search engines were searched on 13 April 2020 for specific Arabic terms on COVID-19. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were analyzed for eligibility, which resulted in a sample of 36 websites. These websites were subjected to quality assessments using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks tool, the DISCERN tool, and Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification. The readability of the websites was assessed using an online readability calculator.ResultsAmong the 36 eligible websites, only one (2.7%) was HONcode certified. No website attained a high score based on the criteria of the DISCERN tool; the mean score of all websites was 31.5 ± 12.55. As regards the JAMA benchmarks results, a mean score of 2.08 ± 1.05 was achieved by the websites; however, only four (11.1%) met all the JAMA criteria. The average grade levels for readability were 7.2 ± 7.5, 3.3 ± 0.6 and 93.5 ± 19.4 for the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Flesch Reading Ease scales, respectively.ConclusionAlmost all of the most easily accessible web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19 does not meet recognized quality standards regardless of the level of readability and ability to be understood by the general population of Arabic speakers.

P126 An analysis of the quality and readability of online information for osteoarthritis

Abstract Background Osteoarthritis is the most common cause of disability in people over 65 years old. The readability of of online osteoarthritis information has never been assessed. A 2003 study found the quality of online osteoarthritis information to be poor. This study reviews the quality of online information regarding osteoarthritis in 2018 using three validated scoring systems. Readability is reviewed for the first time, again using three validated tools. Methods The term osteoarthritis was searched across the three most popular English language search engines. The first 25 pages from each search engine were analysed. Duplicate pages, websites featuring paid advertisements, inaccessible pages (behind a pay wall, not available for geographical reasons) and non-text pages were excluded. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Gunning-Fog Index (GFI). Website quality was scored using the the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and DISCERN criteria. Presence or absence of HONcode certification, age of content, content producer and author characteristics were noted. Results 37 unique websites were suitable for analysis. Readability varied by assessment tool from 8th to 12th grade level. This compares with the recommended 7- 8th grade level. One (2.7%) website met all four JAMA Criteria. Mean DISCERN quality of information for OA websites was “fair”, comparing favourably with the “poor” grading of a 2003 study. HONCode endorsed websites (43.2%) were of a statistically significantly higher quality. Conclusion Quality of online health information for OA is “fair”. 2.7% of websites met JAMA benchmark criteria for quality. Readability was equal to or more difficult than recommendations. HONcode certification was indicative of higher quality, but not readability. Disclosures K. Murray None. T. Murray None. C. Low None. A. O'Rourke None. D.J. Veale None.

Evaluation of YouTube videos about smile design using the DISCERN tool and Journal of the American Medical Association benchmarks

Statement of problemYouTube contains many videos on health-related topics. “Smile Design” is one that is frequently searched on YouTube. Whether YouTube can be considered useful for patients seeking information on smile design is unclear. PurposeThe purpose of this study was to assess and validate the features of the most popular YouTube videos on smile design. Material and methodsIn September 2019, the keyword “smile design” was searched on YouTube in North America using a virtual private network (VPN). The top 100 videos in a constantly updated list were recorded. The DISCERN instrument (Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information) and the benchmarks established by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) were used to evaluate these 100 videos. A spreadsheet (Excel v2016; Microsoft Corp) was used to process statistical data, calculated as mean and frequency. ResultsOf the 100 videos identified, some were excluded as duplicates (11), irrelevant (4), and not presented in English (7). No video met all the JAMA criteria. Adherence to authorship and currency principles was observed in each video, and those adhering to attribution and disclosure principles were categorized as “good.” The average DISCERN score for the 78 included videos was fair (39.6 points); all videos scored poor or fair—very poor, good, or excellent scores were not found. ConclusionsThe quality of information on YouTube videos relating to smile design was only fair. Patients should use smile design information found on YouTube with caution. When professionals upload a video to YouTube, they should use evaluation tools as a quality guide.

Quality, Trustworthiness, Readability, and Accuracy of Medical Information Regarding Common Pediatric Emergency Medicine-Related Complaints on the Web.

The Internet is a universal source of information for parents of children with acute complaints. We sought to analyze information directed at parents regarding common acute pediatric complaints. Authors searched three search engines for four complaints (child+fever, vomiting, cough, stomach pain), assessing the first 20 results for each query. Readability was evaluated using: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and the Coleman-Liau Index. Two reviewers independently evaluated Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria and National Library of Medicine (NLM) Trustworthy scores. Two physicians (emergency medicine/EM, pediatric EM) analyzed text accuracy (number correct divided by total number of facts). Disagreements were settled by a third physician. Accuracy was defined as ≥ 95% correct, readability as an 8th-grade reading level, high quality as at least three JAMA criteria, and trustworthiness as an NLM score ≥ 3. Accurate and inaccurate websites were compared using chi-squared analysis and Mann-Whitney U test. Eighty-seven websites (60%) were accurate (k=0.94). Sixty (42%) of 144 evaluable websites were readable, 38 (26%) had high-quality JAMA criteria (kappa/k=0.68), and 44 (31%) had reliable NLM trustworthy scores (k=0.66). Accurate websites were more frequently published by professional medical organizations (hospitals, academic societies, governments) compared with inaccurate websites (63% vs. 33%, p<0.01). There was no association between accuracy and physician authorship, search rank, quality, trustworthiness, or readability. Many studied websites had inadequate accuracy, quality, trustworthiness, and readability. Measures should be taken to improve web-based information related to acute pediatric complaints.

Readability and Quality of Online Information on Osteoarthritis: An Objective Analysis With Historic Comparison.

BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) is the most common cause of disability in people older than 65 years. Readability of online OA information has never been assessed. A 2003 study found the quality of online OA information to be poor.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to review the readability and quality of current online information regarding OA.MethodsThe term osteoarthritis was searched across the three most popular English language search engines. The first 25 pages from each search engine were analyzed. Duplicate pages, websites featuring paid advertisements, inaccessible pages (behind a pay wall, not available for geographical reasons), and nontext pages were excluded. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fog Index. Website quality was scored using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and the DISCERN criteria. Presence or absence of the Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification, age of content, content producer, and author characteristics were noted.ResultsA total of 37 unique websites were found suitable for analysis. Readability varied by assessment tool from 8th to 12th grade level. This compares with the recommended 7th to 8th grade level. Of the 37, 1 (2.7%) website met all 4 JAMA criteria. Mean DISCERN quality of information for OA websites was “fair,” compared with the “poor” grading of a 2003 study. HONcode-endorsed websites (43%, 16/37) were of a statistically significant higher quality.ConclusionsReadability of online health information for OA was either equal to or more difficult than the recommended level.

Assessment of the quality and readability of online information on autopsy for the general public: a cross-sectional analysis

ObjectivesHospital (consented) autopsy rates have dropped precipitously in recent decades. Online medical information is now a common resource used by the general public. Given clinician reluctance to request hospital postmortem...

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion YouTube Videos as a Source of Patient Education.

Study DesignCross sectional study.PurposeTo assess the quality of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) videos available on YouTube and identify factors associated with video quality.Overview of LiteraturePatients commonly use the internet as a source of information regarding their surgeries. However, there is currently limited information regarding the quality of online videos about ACDF.MethodsA search was performed on YouTube using the phrase ‘anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.’ The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), DISCERN, and Health on the Net (HON) systems were used to rate the first 50 videos obtained. Information about each video was collected, including number of views, duration since the video was posted, percentage positivity (defined as number of likes the video received, divided by the total number of likes or dislikes of that video), number of comments, and the author of the video. Relationships between video quality and these factors were investigated.ResultsThe average number of views for each video was 96,239. The most common videos were those published by surgeons and those containing patient testimonies. Overall, the video quality was poor, with mean scores of 1.78/5 using the DISCERN criteria, 1.63/4 using the JAMA criteria, and 1.96/8 using the HON criteria. Surgeon authors’ videos scored higher than patient testimony videos when reviewed using the HON or JAMA systems. However, no other factors were found to be associated with video quality.ConclusionsThe quality of ACDF videos on YouTube is low, with the majority of videos produced by unreliable sources. Therefore, these YouTube videos should not be recommended as patient education tools for ACDF.