Evaluating the Quality and Readability of Online Resources for Labiaplasty

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality, readability, and accuracy of Web-based information regarding labiaplasty and to characterize the types of Web sites providing this information. Methods Investigators used 3 major search engines to query the internet using the search terms labiaplasty, labia reduction, and vaginal rejuvenation. Two validated tools were used to evaluate Web sites: the JAMA benchmark tool and the DISCERN instrument. Three physicians independently reviewed each Web site. Interrater agreement was assessed, and reviewer scores were averaged. Flesch-Kincaid reading ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade level of each site were assessed. Data were analyzed using Stata 14.0 (College Station, TX). Results Of the 112 Web sites reviewed, 100 Web sites were from North America, 9 from Europe, 2 from Australia, and 1 from Asia. The median score using the JAMA tool was 1.0 (0.33–4.0), indicating low accountability, whereas the median score using the DISCERN tool was 28 (18.7–77) of 80 with higher scores indicating higher quality. Cohen’s weighted κ statistic (0.81) demonstrated near perfect agreement among reviewers for DISCERN scores. The median reading level was 11.9 (6.4–19.5). A majority of the Web sites (92) were for-profit businesses or blogs. Conclusions The internet enables patients to research sensitive topics and seek answers without worry of social stigma. Online health-related information is a widely used yet poorly studied source of medical information. The majority of Web sites reviewed lack balanced, evidence-based information. Given the wide variation in the quality of information, physicians should guide patients to reputable online resources.

Assessing the quality and readability of online content on shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction

“…Similar studies analysing online information on novel therapies using DISCERN and readability scores concurrently report findings consistent with this study (Davuluri et al, 2021; Pandya et al, 2021). Online medical information containing low to moderate quality, a reading level that is higher than recommended, and variation between sources are all findings reported in current literature (Davuluri et al, 2021; Kloosterboer et al, 2021; Pandya et al, 2021; Pattenden et al, 2021). Physicians should fill in the gap of patient interpretation of online content to ensure patients pursue the treatments best suited for them.…”

“…Similar studies analysing online information on novel therapies using DISCERN and readability scores concurrently report findings consistent with this study (Davuluri et al, 2021;Pandya et al, 2021).…”

“…Online medical information containing low to moderate quality, a reading level that is higher than recommended, and variation between sources are all findings reported in current literature (Davuluri et al, 2021;Kloosterboer et al, 2021;Pandya et al, 2021;Pattenden et al, 2021). Physicians should fill in the gap of patient interpretation of online content to ensure patients pursue the treatments best suited for them.…”