Online urological educational material for medical students: can search engines be trusted?

Abstract

Objectives To determine the credibility of online urological information that medical students are likely to encounter, determine possible discrepancies between the credibility of information pertaining to different areas within urology (especially those less relevant to patients), and assess trends in the sponsorship of online urological educational material. Materials and Methods Health on the Net (HON) principles were used as a validated benchmark to assess the reliability of websites that appeared in the first 150 results of a search using the Google search engine. A variety of urological search terms were used, grouped into three broad categories with varying relevance to patients and medical students. Further analysis focussed on the sponsorship of assessed websites. Results A total of 5400 websites were assessed for validation over a set of 36 search terms. Only 843/5400 (15.6%) of these were HONcode accredited, indicating a large proportion of unverified and potentially unreliable information. Search engine rankings usually favoured accredited websites (P = 0.009), and accreditation peaked at 51.1% (184/360) in the first page of results, but sorting became weaker outside the highest search results. The percentage of accredited websites varied significantly between different subcategories of search terms such as conditions (18.3% [329/1800], P = 0.003) and procedures (13.5% [243/1800], P = 0.043). Governmental/educational and commercial sources supported the majority of websites assessed for sponsorship (21% [31/150] and 33% [49/150], respectively), and the former were more likely to rank highly in search results. Conclusion Online urological information frequently lacks validation and is often of indeterminate credibility. There is a marked decrease in the proportion of accredited websites beyond the highest‐ranked results and when considering search categories more relevant to students and less relevant to patients. Students cannot necessarily rely on free online sources for accurate information and could benefit from the development of more rigorous novel tools and platforms.

Accuracy of prostate cancer screening recommendations for high‐risk populations on YouTube and TikTok

“…Our study focused exclusively on video‐sharing platforms as a source of information for patients; however, YT and TK exist within the wider context of the internet. In a recent study, Gunasegaram et al reviewed 5400 webpages to evaluate the quality of online urology information 37 . They found that online information frequently lacks validation and is of indeterminate credibility.…”

“…In a recent study, Gunasegaram et al reviewed 5400 webpages to evaluate the quality of online urology information. 37 They found that online information frequently lacks validation and is of indeterminate credibility. Similarly, Loeb et al compared the quality of prostate cancer information on 150 YT videos with that on 150 websites and found that most content did not meet quality criteria for health information.…”