Mean Flesch Reading Ease Score Research Articles

Non-Compliance of Fertility Patients with the Ejaculatory Abstinence Period: The Influence of Confusing Online Fertility Information

Background: Findings from a Western Australian fertility clinic show that male patients may often disregard ejaculatory abstinence directives prior to providing a semen sample. This practise may lead to the production of low quality spermatozoa. Aim: This study explores the readability and accessibility of online patient information from fertility clinics across Australia as a reason why patients may not adhere to instructions surrounding this behaviour. Method: A content analysis was conducted of patient information from the websites of 86 registered fertility clinics in Australia. The reading complexity of information found on these websites was determined through calculating the Flesch Reading Ease Scores and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Levels of excerpts retrieved. The presence and diversity of information provided in multilingual formats was recorded. Online instructions regarding ejaculatory abstinence were also compared within and between clinics to identify contradictory information. Results: The mean Flesch Reading Ease Score across all websites was 47.54 (s.d. 8.18) and the mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 11.09 (s.d. 1.11), indicating that the information presented exceeds the average Australian’s reading abilities. Information was also rarely presented in languages other than English (1/36 clinic websites, 2.8%) and ejaculatory abstinence recommendations were frequently contradictory (11/24 clinic websites, 45.8%). Conclusion: The provision of confusing and inaccessible online fertility information by fertility clinics to patients may represent a potential barrier to ejaculatory abstinence adherence. It is recommended that fertility clinics revise their online information to ensure readability.

152 Assessment of Quality and Readability of Online Patient Education Materials Relating to Dog Bites

Abstract Aim Dog bites are common injuries which can result in significant morbidity and comprise a large workload for plastic surgery. We aimed to assess the quality and readability of online patient education resources related to dog bites. Method We entered the search term ‘dog bite’ into Google and assessed the top 50 results for quality and readability. Quality was measured using the DISCERN questionnaire, benchmark criteria published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and accreditation by the HONcode (Health On the Net code). Readability was measured with the Flesch-Kincaid reading grade (FKRG), Flesch reading ease score, Gunning's fog index, and the Coleman-Liau index (CLI). Results The mean JAMA and DISCERN scores were 2/4 and 35.7/80 respectively suggesting average quality. Only 3 sites were HONcode certified (7%). The mean Flesch reading ease score was 11.3 suggesting that the materials were very difficult to read and best understood by those with tertiary education. This corresponded with the high Gunning's fog score of 14.2. The FKRG and CLI indicated similar results. Conclusions Online materials relating to dog bites are of average quality and poor readability, especially in the context of the UK's reading age of 9. Avoidance of medical jargon and use of shorter words and sentences would improve readability. Timely review of websites, improved information on authorship and references could improve quality. Improved quality and readability would make it easier for patients to understand what to do following a dog bite, how to seek help if appropriate and what treatment to expect.

Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on post-covid pain.

BackgroundThe use of the Internet to access healthcare-related information is increasing day by day. However, there are concerns regarding the reliability and comprehensibility of this information. This study aimed to investigate the readability, reliability, and quality of Internet-based patient educational materials (PEM) related to “post-COVID-19 pain.”MethodsOne-hundred websites that fit the purposes of the study were identified by searching for the terms “post-COVID-19 pain” and “pain after COVID-19” using the Google search engine on February 24, 2022. The website readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning FOG (GFOG). The reliability, quality, and popularity of the websites were assessed using the JAMA score, DISCERN score/Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct, and Alexa, respectively.ResultsUpon investigation of the textual contents, the mean FRES was 51.40 ± 10.65 (difficult), the mean FKGL and SMOG were 10.93 ± 2.17 and 9.83 ± 1.66 years, respectively, and the mean GFOG was 13.14 ± 2.16 (very difficult). Furthermore, 24.5% of the websites were highly reliable according to JAMA scores, 8% were of high quality according to GQS values, and 10% were HONcode-compliant. There was a statistically significant difference between the website types and reliability (p = 0.003) and quality scores (p = 0.002).ConclusionThe readability level of PEM on post-COVID-19 pain was considerably higher than grade 6 educational level, as recommended by the National Institutes of Health, and had low reliability and poor quality. We suggest that Internet-based PEM should have a certain degree of readability that is in accordance with the educational level of the general public and feature reliable content.

Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: An Analysis of Readability and Quality of Web-Based information

IntroductionVertebral compression fractures are among the most common fragility fractures with significant morbidity and mortality. With an aging population, the incidence of these fractures is on the rise. In this age of social and electronic media, there is a plethora of online information available. While access to healthcare information has increased, most of these websites remain beyond the comprehension of their target audience.ObjectiveTo assess the readability and quality of online information regarding osteoporotic vertebral fractures.MethodsA search for the terms osteoporotic vertebral fractures, osteoporotic spinal fractures, and fragility spinal fractures was performed using the top five search engines. Eighty-three websites were identified and analyzed. Quality assessment was done using the DISCERN and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) tools while readability was analyzed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch Kincaid Grade (FKG), and Gunning Fog Index (GFI).ResultsThe mean DISCERN score was 39.55 while the mean JAMA was 2.2. Readability testing revealed a mean FRES score of 49.26 with 16 websites having a score of > 60, FKG 8.38, and GFI of 9.51. 33 websites had an FKG score of 8 or below 8.ConclusionThe above results indicate that web-based information relating to osteoporotic vertebral fractures is of variable quality and readability. Although 40 % of websites are at the eighth grade or below level, only 16 % of websites are above the FRES score of 60, which makes online information difficult to comprehend by an average patient.

Readability of English, German, and Russian Disease-Related Wikipedia Pages: Automated Computational Analysis.

BackgroundWikipedia is a popular encyclopedia for health- and disease-related information in which patients seek advice and guidance on the web. Yet, Wikipedia articles can be unsuitable as patient education materials, as investigated in previous studies that analyzed specific diseases or medical topics with a comparatively small sample size. Currently, no data are available on the average readability levels of all disease-related Wikipedia pages for the different localizations of this particular encyclopedia.ObjectiveThis study aimed to analyze disease-related Wikipedia pages written in English, German, and Russian using well-established readability metrics for each language.MethodsWikipedia database snapshots and Wikidata metadata were chosen as resources for data collection. Disease-related articles were retrieved separately for English, German, and Russian starting with the main concept of Human Diseases and Disorders (German: Krankheit; Russian: Заболевания человека). In the case of existence, the corresponding International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), codes were retrieved for each article. Next, the raw texts were extracted and readability metrics were computed.ResultsThe number of articles included in this study for English, German, and Russian Wikipedia was n=6127, n=6024, and n=3314, respectively. Most disease-related articles had a Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score <50.00, signaling difficult or very difficult educational material (English: 5937/6125, 96.93%; German: 6004/6022, 99.7%; Russian: 2647/3313, 79.9%). In total, 70% (7/10) of the analyzed articles could be assigned an ICD-10 code with certainty (English: 4235/6127, 69.12%; German: 4625/6024, 76.78%; Russian: 2316/3314, 69.89%). For articles with ICD-10 codes, the mean FRE scores were 28.69 (SD 11.00), 20.33 (SD 9.98), and 38.54 (SD 13.51) for English, German, and Russian, respectively. A total of 9 English ICD-10 chapters (11 German and 10 Russian) showed significant differences: chapter F (FRE 23.88, SD 9.95; P<.001), chapter E (FRE 25.14, SD 9.88; P<.001), chapter H (FRE 30.04, SD 10.57; P=.049), chapter I (FRE 30.05, SD 9.07; P=.04), chapter M (FRE 31.17, 11.94; P<.001), chapter T (FRE 32.06, SD 10.51; P=.001), chapter A (FRE 32.63, SD 9.25; P<.001), chapter B (FRE 33.24, SD 9.07; P<.001), and chapter S (FRE 39.02, SD 8.22; P<.001).ConclusionsDisease-related English, German, and Russian Wikipedia articles cannot be recommended as patient education materials because a major fraction is difficult or very difficult to read. The authors of Wikipedia pages should carefully revise existing text materials for readers with a specific interest in a disease or its associated symptoms. Special attention should be given to articles on mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders (ICD-10 chapter F) because these articles were most difficult to read in comparison with other ICD-10 chapters. Wikipedia readers should be supported by editors providing a short and easy-to-read summary for each article.

A critical readability and quality analysis of internet-based patient information on neck dissections.

Patients are increasingly turning to the Internet as a source of healthcare information. Given that neck dissection is a common procedure within the field of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, the aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of online patient education materials on neck dissection. A Google search was performed using the term "neck dissection." The first 10 pages of a Google search using the term "neck dissection" were analyzed. The DISCERN instrument was used to assess quality of information. Readability was calculated using the Flesch-Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index. Thirty-one online patient education materials were included. Fifty-five percent (n = 17) of results originated from academic institutions or hospitals. The mean Flesch-Reading Ease score was 61.2 ± 11.9. Fifty-two percent (n = 16) of patient education materials had Flesch-Reading Ease scores above the recommended score of 65. The average reading grade level was 10.5 ± 2.1. The average total DISCERN score was 43.6 ± 10.1. Only 26% of patient education materials (PEMs) had DISCERN scores corresponding to a "good quality" rating. There was a significant positive correlation between DISCERN scores and both Flesch-Reading Ease scores and average reading grade level. The majority of patient education materials were written above the recommended sixth-grade reading level and the quality of online information pertaining to neck dissections was found to be suboptimal. This research highlights the need for patient education materials regarding neck dissection that are high quality and easily understandable by patients.

Quality and Readability of Online Patient Education Materials Related to Branchial Cleft Cysts

IntroductionBranchial cleft cysts are the second most common congenital neck mass and can cause significant anxiety for patients and families despite their benign nature. Education through online patient education materials (PEMs) is critical for informing patients and reducing stress. We aimed to determine the content, quality, and readability of online PEMs related to branchial cleft cysts.MethodsThe search engine Google was used to collect the first 100 website results for the query “branchial cleft cyst.” PEMs were included and assessed for content, quality via the DISCERN tool, and readability via Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook (GFOG), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG).ResultsTwenty-six websites containing PEMs related to branchial cleft cysts were assessed. Most websites were from universities or medical centers and did not contain any media. The mean DISCERN score was 49.3 (SD: 11.1, Median: 52.5), the mean FRES score was 51.9 (SD: 12.1, Median: 54.0), the mean FKGL score was 10.35 (SD: 2.52, Median: 9.95), the mean GFOG score was 13.32 (SD: 2.52, Median: 13.00), and the mean SMOG score was 10.25 (SD: 1.83, Median: 9.95). DISCERN was not significantly correlated with FRES, FKGL, GFOG, or SMOG.ConclusionOnline PEMs related to branchial cleft cysts are consistently written above the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommended sixth-grade reading level and are often of unsatisfactory overall quality. Writers of online PEMs for branchial cleft cysts should consider the readability and quality of their materials to improve patient education and reduce anxiety.

Readability and quality levels of websites that contain written information about anterior cruciate ligament injury: A survey of Turkish websites.

This study aimed to evaluate the contents and readability levels of informative texts about anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) on Turkish websites. In this cross-sectional study, online searches were performed using the Google, Yandex, and Yahoo search engines on 16, 17, and 18 November 2020, respectively. In these three search engines, 'anterior cruciate ligament', 'anterior cruciate ligament surgery', 'ACL', and 'ACL surgery' were entered in Turkish. The first 10 pages from each search on the websites were collected. The websites were divided into 3 groups according to their sources. Group 1 was classified as websites prepared by private hospitals or medical centers; group 2, as individual websites of orthopedics and traumatology physicians; and group 3, as non-profit websites providing general health information that does not fall into these two groups. The websites were analyzed based on both the website interface and a specific content scoring guide by two reviewers. The Flesch Kincaid (FK) grade level and the Flesch reading ease (FRE) score were used to determine the readability of information on the websites. Eighty-five unique websites were evaluated. The mean quality score of all the websites was 10.4 ± 4.5 with a maximum score of 25 (range=3-21). No significant difference in quality score was found between the groups. The mean FK grade score of all the websites was 11.2 ± 1.7 (range=7.9-15.3). The mean FRE score of all the websites was 46.8 ± 7.7 (range=24.1-63.7). No statistically significant differences in FK grade and FRE score were found between the groups. Although 59 websites (69%) had a third-party seal indicating the certification of one of the organizations established to provide a standard of health information on the Internet, only 21 websites (25%) were updated in the year before the search. The readability level of the informative texts about the ACL on the Turkish websites was above the educational level in Turkey. In addition, the quality score of the Turkish websites related to ACL was low. The content of the informative texts should be organized while taking into account the patients' literacy level.

Readability of Online Spine Patient Education Resources

We assessed the readability of spine-related patient education materials on professional society websites to determine whether this had improved since last studied. We also compared the readability of these materials to a more patient-centered source, such as WebMD. Patient education pages from the American Association of Neurologic Surgeons (AANS), North American Spine Society (NASS), and spine-related pages from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), and WebMD were reviewed. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas. The mean FKGL and FRE scores of the societies were compared using one-way analysis of variance. The rate of a reading level at or below an eighth grade level was compared using the χ2 test. We analyzed a total of 156 sites. The mean FKGL score for the professional society sites was 11.4. The mean FRE score for the professional societies was 45.8, with 14.4% written at or below an eighth grade reading level. We found a significant difference in the FKGL scores and materials at or below the eighth grade level between the AAOS and AANS and AAOS and NASS. The mean FKGL and FRE scores for WebMD were 7.57 and 68.1, respectively, with a significant difference compared with the scores for the AAOS, NASS, and AANS. In addition, 80% of the WebMD materials had been written at or below the eighth grade reading level. A significant difference compared with the AANS and NASS (P < 0.0001) but not for the AAOS (P= 0.059). The average readability of spine-related topics exceeded the eighth grade reading level. The AAOS resources had better readability compared with the NASS and AANS. We found no improvement in readability since last studied. The readability of professional societies' materials was significantly worse than those from WebMD.

Readability and Variability Among Online Resources for Patella Dislocation: What Patients Are Reading.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the readability, content, and authorship of websites related to patella instability. A search was performed using three search engines and four terms related to patella dislocation. Thirty-seven unique websites were identified. Seventeen of 37 (46%) websites disclosed the authorship credentials. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade was 10.8±3.5, and the mean Flesch reading ease score was 47.6±18. Only 8 of 37 (22%) websites had a third-party Health On the Net seal. The information presented online about patella dislocation can be unreliable and misleading for patients. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(2):e62-e66.].

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Evaluation of Web-Based Information.

IntroductionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), the gold standard treatment for symptomatic gallstone disease, is the most common procedure performed by general surgeons worldwide. The internet remains to be a popular source of medical information. Our aim was to evaluate the quality and readability of information available on the web for patients undergoing LC and to compare the information provided by the National Health Service (NHS) and non-NHS websites. MethodsWe searched for the keywords ‘laparoscopic cholecystectomy’ using the three most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo and MSN) and looked at the first 50 websites only. The readability of each document was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score. We checked Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification status, whether the sites had been checked by an expert and when the information was last updated.ResultsFifty-five of the possible 150 sites were analysed thus excluding repetitions (n=65), irrelevant content (n=26) or inaccessible links (n=3). Only seven of those were HONcode-certified. The mean FRE score was 46 (range 0-68, SD=16.13). There were 13 NHS sites and 42 non-NHS sites. The mean FRE score for the NHS sites was significantly better compared to the non-NHS sites [58.31 (SD=5.01) vs 42.21 (SD=16.35); p=0.001]. Fifty-four per cent (54%) of the analysed websites had been checked by a medical expert and 22% were updated within the last year.ConclusionsThis study highlights the poor quality and readability of information on medical websites. The information provided by NHS sites have significantly better readability compared to non-NHS sites.

Treatment for Constipation-An Online Search. Readability and Quality of Online Patient Resources.

Aim: To evaluate the readability and quality of online patient information regarding treatment for constipation in the English language. Methods: By utilizing the Google © website, the keyword “treatment for chronic constipation” was searched. Each webpage was assessed by 2 authors independently for readability using both the Gunning Fog Index (GFI) and the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). The quality of the information produced on each individual website was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Other parameters that were recorded included the country of origin, the organization type, and whether or not the website was issued a Health on the Net (HoN) certificate. Results: This study identified a mean GFI score of 13.2 and a mean FRES score of 48.9. This result indicates poor overall readability. A mean DISCERN score of 37.9 was produced, indicating an overall weak quality of online information on this topic. This study indicated that parameters such as website organization type and the presence or absence of HoN certification impacted the quality of the information websites on this topic. Conclusion: This study indicated a poor level of quality and readability of online information on the topic of chronic constipation treatment. Further resources should be directed towards improving website readability and quality. Patients may be advised that if they wish to access online information on this topic, websites that display HoN accreditation will likely produce higher quality information.

Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?

BackgroundIncreasing numbers of patients and carers rely on online resources for healthcare information. Radiation safety can be misunderstood by patients and clinicians and lead to patient anxiety. We aimed to assess the readability of online patient educational materials (PEMs) related to radiation safety.MethodsA total of 84 articles pertaining to radiation safety from 14 well-known online resources were identified. PEMs were then analysed using Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2019. Readability was assessed using eight different instruments: the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Raygor Estimate, SMOG, Coleman–Liau, Fry, FORCAST, Gunning Fog, and Flesch Reading Ease Score formula. The mean reading grade level (RGL) of each article was compared to the 6th and 8th grade reading level using 1-sample t-tests.ResultsThe cumulative mean RGL for all 84 articles was 13.3 (range = 8.6–17.4), and none were written at or below the 6th or 8th grade level. The cumulative mean RGL exceeded the 6th grade reading level by an average of 7.3 levels (95% CI, 6.8–7.8; p < 0.001) and the 8th grade level by an average of 5.3 grade levels (95% CI, 4.8–5.8; p < 0.001). The mean Flesch Reading Ease Score was 39/100 (‘difficult’).ConclusionCurrently available online PEMs related to radiation safety are still written at higher than recommended reading levels. Radiation safety is a topic in which the specialist training of radiologists is crucial in providing guidance to patients. Addressing the readability of online PEMs can improve radiology-patient communication and support the shift to a patient-centred model of practice.

Improving meningococcal MenACWY and 4CMenB/meningococcal group B vaccine‐related health literacy in patients: Importance of readability of pharmaceutical Patient Leaflets

Patient information leaflets (PILs) or Patient Leaflets (PLs) formally accompany dispensed medicines and are intended to provide the patient with information on how to use the medicine safely. To date, there have been no studies that have examined the readability of meningococcal vaccine patient-facing information, including information contained within the vaccine PIL. Given the role of pharmacists in presenting PILs to patients, it was, therefore, the aim of this study to quantitatively analyse the readability of Patient Leaflets, which accompany licensed meningococcal vaccines in the UK and US and to compare PILs to vaccine pharmaceutical manufacturers' summary of product characteristics (SPC), as well as other patient-facing vaccine-related information. Five sources of meningococcal vaccine information were examined for the licensed meningococcal vaccines in the UK (Bexsero, Menveo, Menitorix, Trumenba, Nimenrix & NeisVac-C) and in the United States (Bexsero, Menveo, Trumenba, Menactra, Menomune-A/C/Y/W-135, Menquadfi), including as follows: (i) SPC (Electronic Medicines Compendium, UK), (ii) Package Insert (FDA; USA), (iii) Patient Leaflet (Electronic Medicines Compendium, UK), (iv) Vaccine pharmaceutical websites and (v) government web resources. Readability was examined employing 10 readability metrics, including the Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade level. The information source with the greatest readability scores was the UK Patient Leaflet, which had a mean Flesch Reading Ease score of 58.1 and a mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade score of 7.3, followed by the US Department of Health & Human Services patient-facing website for vaccines (55.9 & 8, respectively), followed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccine Information Statement (47.3 & 9.4, respectively). Pharmaceutical patient-facing websites for meningococcal vaccines had mean scores of 44.6 and 9.9, respectively. When compared with UK Patient Leaflets, pharmaceutical websites were statistically different with poorer readability with both Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level indices (p=0.02 & p=0.04, respectively). Pharmaceutical meningococcal vaccine PILs were easily read and had statistically significant good readability scores in comparison with vaccine SPCs and US Package Inserts, pharmaceutical product websites and other government patient-facing meningococcal vaccine information. Preparation of patient-facing materials of a complex topic, such as describing meningococcal vaccines, is difficult to accomplish. Although there is a plurality of sources of information through websites and social media, PILs are one of the few sources that are provided directly to patients. This underpins the potential importance of PILs and the importance of their readability. Adoption of readability calculators and scrutiny of materials for their readability will help authors develop materials with improved understanding for vaccine recipients, potentially leading to improved health literacy and vaccine uptake. Renewed efforts should be sought to promote the information within the PIL, thereby maximizing the value of this resource with vaccine recipients, their carers and family.

Readability and Variability Among Online Sources for Patella Dislocation: What Patients are Reading

Patients frequently use the internet to obtain medical information, and the information may be misleading. Patella dislocation is a common orthopaedic injury for which patients may use the internet as a resource to better understand treatment options and recovery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate online information about patella instability in order to assess what patients are reading. A search was performed using Google, Yahoo, and Bing search engines and four similar terms related to patella dislocation (patella instability, kneecap dislocation, dislocated kneecap, and patella dislocation). A list of 37 websites were compiled. The readability of websites was analyzed using Flesch-Reading tools and content was assessed using a content scoring guide that evaluates whether the websites mentioned certain topics relevant to patella dislocation. The website content score was calculated and averaged from the evaluation of two scorers. 17 of 37 (46%) websites disclosed the author credentials, and 13 of 37 (35%) websites were authored by physicians with a M.D. degree. The mean Flesh-Kincaid Grade for all websites was 10.8 ± 3.5 and the mean Flesch Reading Ease Score was 47.6 ± 18, indicating that on average, the websites were moderately difficult to read. Websites that were written by non-physicians had the highest website content score (65.0 out of 100 points), indicating that these websites discussed most topics related to patellar dislocation. Only 8 of 37 (22%) websites had a 3rd party HON seal, which validates the quality and reliability of information on the website. The information presented online about patellar dislocation is unreliable and written at a reading level that is difficult for the average patient to understand. Patients should be aware of the potential inaccuracy of information presented online and orthopaedic surgeons should consider recommending reliable websites to patients.

Patient information on the internet for surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease: is it good enough?

Background: Our study aimed to identify the search engines and terms commonly used by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients and aimed to assess the quality and readability of these resources.Methods: Patients attending IBD clinic were surveyed, regarding search engines, terms and number of websites viewed. Websites according to these predetermined criteria were identified. Website content was described and quality was assessed using DISCERN. Readability was graded using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES).Results: From 33 survey responses, Google was universally utilised. Forty-two websites met the inclusion criteria (19 for Crohn’s disease (CD), 23 for ulcerative colitis (UC). Only one website originated from Australia. Websites were infrequently updated (CD 21%, UC 17%) within the previous 12 months. Overall readability was poor with a mean FRES of 35.8 (11.8, range 15.7-57.7) for CD and 35.7 (11.3, range 19.4-54.3) for UC websites. Quality was moderate to poor with only five (12%) websites being rated as high quality (2 CD, 3 UC).Conclusions: There is very little Australian based web information available on IBD surgery and overall, it is of a low readability and poor content quality. There is need for the development of patient targeted health literature to help these patients.

Osteotomy around the knee: Assessment of quality, content and readability of online information

BackgroundAs knee osteotomy surgery becomes increasingly accessible, more patients may turn to the Internet for information. This study examined the source, quality, content and readability of online information regarding osteotomy around the knee. MethodsThe first 70 websites returned by the top four search engines were identified using the key words: “knee osteotomy” and “high tibial osteotomy.” The websites were categorised by type and assessed using the DISCERN score, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and a novel Knee Osteotomy-Specific Score (KOSS). The presence of the Health On the Net (HON) code accreditation seal was noted. Readability of each website was assessed using eight readability formulae. The mean reading grade level (RGL) was compared to the 6th and 8th grade reading levels. The mean RGL of each category was also compared. ResultsOf the 45 unique websites analysed, the majority were Physician (33%) and Journal websites (31%). The mean DISCERN score was 36.7 (±8.9) which is classified as ‘poor.’ The mean JAMA benchmark criteria score was 2.04 (±1.5) and Physician websites were most likely to be scored zero. The mean KOSS was 15.4 (±5.7). The highest scoring website was a Commercial site but, overall, Journal category sites provided the best quality information. Websites that bore the HONcode seal obtained higher DISCERN, JAMA benchmark criteria and Knee Osteotomy - Specific Scores.The cumulative mean RGL was 13.2 (±2.2) which exceeded the 6th grade level by an average of 7.2 grade levels and the 8th grade level by an average of 5.2 grade levels. No website (0%) was written at or below either the 6th or the 8th grade reading levels. The mean Flesch Reading Ease Score of all websites was 41.13 (±14.7) which is classified as ‘difficult.’ Journal websites had the highest RGL. ConclusionThe information available online regarding osteotomy around the knee varies tremendously in quality and completeness. Physician sites predominate, but these were among the lowest scoring of all websites. Even where high quality information is available, it is set at too high a level to be easily understood. Level of evidenceSurvey of materials – Internet.

Orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: A qualitative evaluation of Internet information available to the general public

The evaluation of online information regarding orthodontic temporary anchorage devices (TADs) is lacking despite the increase in their use by orthodontists. This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the quality of information regarding TADs available on the Internet to the general public. Two search terms ("orthodontic temporary anchorage device" and "orthodontic miniscrew") were entered separately into a total of 5 search engines. The DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct were used to evaluate the quality of information contained within Web sites that satisfied the inclusion and/or exclusion criteria. Web site readability was assessed via the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook and Flesch Reading Ease Score tools. Descriptive statistical analyses and Cohen's kappa intrarater reliability tests were performed. Thirty-one Web sites were evaluated. Most were authored by orthodontists (77.4%) and originated from the U.S. (38.7%). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) DISCERN score was 41.87 (8.45) out of 80, with a range of 27-57. Intrarater reliability testing for DISCERN scores was excellent (0.84). Four Web sites achieved all 4 JAMA benchmarks, and 2 achieved none. Referencing of content sources throughout the Web sites scored least via DISCERN (mean 1.49 out of 5 per Web site [SD, 0.77]) and JAMA (19.35% of Web sites). One Web site contained the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct seal. The mean (SD) Simple Measure of Gobbledygook score was 8.75 (1.25), with a range of 6.5-11.3. The mean (SD) Flesch Reading Ease Score was 59.81 (7.17), with a range of 47.6-73.8. The quality of information related to TADs on the Internet is moderate. The usefulness of the information may be further reduced because it was beyond the readability of the average member of the general public. Web site authors should consider the use of additional expertise, quality of information tools, and readability formulas to ensure high-quality and easily readable content.

Online Kidney Stone Educational Materials Do Not Meet Recommended Readability Standards.

The prevalence of kidney stones is rising and there is an increasing demand for reliable, easy to understand information for patients. To evaluate the readability of common Internet-based resources for kidney stones, we examined whether the most popular online educational materials may be contributing to decreased health literacy for this chronic condition. Websites for readability analysis were chosen based on a Google.com search using the search term "kidney stones." The top 10 websites were chosen for analysis and their quality was assessed by the presence or absence of a HONcode certificate. Readability was determined using 6 readability assessment tools: Flesch Reading Ease, FORCAST, Fry, Gunning Fog, Raygor Estimate and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Each website was then analyzed by subsections, with emphasis on the treatment and prevention of kidney stones. Of the 10 websites analyzed 8 had HONcode certification. Grade level calculations ranged from 7-13.9. All 10 websites were found to have readability levels above the recommended sixth-grade reading level. Mean Flesch Reading Ease score was 59 (range 47-73). With respect to treatment and prevention sections, 6/10 and 5/10 websites had readability levels above a tenth-grade level, respectively. The most commonly accessed websites regarding kidney stones have readability scores above what is comprehensible to the general public, with most exceeding grade level recommendations from the American Medical Association. Websites pertaining to kidney stones need to be simplified to facilitate patient understanding, especially with respect to the treatment and prevention of kidney stones.

Web‐based information on orthodontic clear aligners: a qualitative and readability assessment

Data regarding the quality of information (QOI) related to orthodontic clear aligners (OCAs) on the internet are lacking. The aim of the present investigation was to assess the quality and readability of websites providing information regarding OCAs to prospective patients. Three search terms were entered separately into three search engines. Four validated QOI instruments were used to determine the QOI and readability of the content contained within the websites that satisfied predetermined criteria. Descriptive statistical analyses and intrarater testing for DISCERN scores were calculated. Forty-nine websites satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria. General dentists (44.9%) and specialist orthodontists (26.5%) authored the majority of websites. One website contained the Health on the Net (HON) code seal. Cohen's kappa for DISCERN scores was good (0.87). The overall mean (SD) DISCERN score was 38.55 (8.00)/80, range 26-60. The websites authored by 'Direct-to-consumer' OCA providers recorded the lowest DISCERN mean score (33/80). One website contained all four Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks. The mean (SD) Flesch Reading Ease score was 53.92 (9.08), range 36-82.5. The QOI of the website content related to OCAs is poor and is 'fairly difficult' to read. Website authors should consider using QOI instruments and readability tools to enable the delivery of evidence-based and easily readable information regarding OCAs to prospective patients.