BackgroundThe Internet is used increasingly by providers as a tool for disseminating pain-related health information and by patients as a resource about health conditions and treatment options. However, health information on the Internet remains unregulated and varies in quality, accuracy and readability. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of pain websites, and explain variability in quality and readability between pain websites.MethodsFive key terms (pain, chronic pain, back pain, arthritis, and fibromyalgia) were entered into the Google, Yahoo and MSN search engines. Websites were assessed using the DISCERN instrument as a quality index. Grade level readability ratings were assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Algorithm. Univariate (using alpha = 0.20) and multivariable regression (using alpha = 0.05) analyses were used to explain the variability in DISCERN scores and grade level readability using potential for commercial gain, health related seals of approval, language(s) and multimedia features as independent variables.ResultsA total of 300 websites were assessed, 21 excluded in accordance with the exclusion criteria and 110 duplicate websites, leaving 161 unique sites. About 6.8% (11/161 websites) of the websites offered patients' commercial products for their pain condition, 36.0% (58/161 websites) had a health related seal of approval, 75.8% (122/161 websites) presented information in English only and 40.4% (65/161 websites) offered an interactive multimedia experience. In assessing the quality of the unique websites, of a maximum score of 80, the overall average DISCERN Score was 55.9 (13.6) and readability (grade level) of 10.9 (3.9). The multivariable regressions demonstrated that website seals of approval (P = 0.015) and potential for commercial gain (P = 0.189) were contributing factors to higher DISCERN scores, while seals of approval (P = 0.168) and interactive multimedia (P = 0.244) contributed to lower grade level readability, as indicated by estimates of the beta coefficients.ConclusionThe overall quality of pain websites is moderate, with some shortcomings. Websites that scored high using the DISCERN questionnaire contained health related seals of approval and provided commercial solutions for pain related conditions while those with low readability levels offered interactive multimedia options and have been endorsed by health seals.

Quality assessment instruments Two solutions to address the issues of accuracy and reliability of online health information have been designed, DISCERN instrument and JAMA benchmarks. The DISCERN questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument for analyzing written consumer health information [6]. It is comprised of 16 questions assessing both the reliability of the resource and quality of information about the treatment choice. The JAMA benchmarks provide a means for qualitatively assessing websites for the presence of authorship, attribution, currency and disclosure [7]. Thus, the purpose of this investigation is to assess the quality of online health information about the ERCP procedure.

The rate of discrepancy fell steeply between the second and fifth year of the residents training from 18.5% to 6.9%. Our study suggests that it is reasonable to have on-call radiology residents perform the preliminary interpretations of 64-slice CT for PE studies.

The overall quality of websites for UFE is moderate, with important but not serious shortcomings. The best websites provided relevant information about the procedure, benefits/risks, and were interactive. DISCERN scores were compromised by sites failing to provide resources for shared decision-making, additional support, and discussing consequence of no treatment. JAMA benchmarks revealed lack of authorship and currency.