Quality, Reliability, and Readability of Online Information on Rhinoplasty

Abstract

Background: With an ever-growing reliance on technology, patients are increasingly resorting to websites for their medical information. This study evaluates the readability, quality, and reliability of online information available on rhinoplasty provided by academic centers or impartial reference sources and private practice websites. Methods: A cross-sectional study from July to August 2019 was performed looking at the first 42 informational websites on a Google search for the term nose job. Websites were categorized as belonging to impartial sources and academic centers or private practices. Two independent reviewers evaluated websites on their quality, readability, reliability, and technical qualities using several validated measures. The Health on the Net code (HONcode) and DISCERN questionnaire were used to assess the quality and reliability of the information presented on the websites. Significance tests were performed using SPSS Version 25. Results: Of the 42 websites, 23 were impartial sources or academic centers (54.8%) and 19 were private practice websites (47.6%). The mean (AESD) for the HONcode and DISCERN scores were 5.7 (AE2.8) and 2.6 (AE0.7), respectively. The mean (SD) HONcode scores for impartial sources and private practice websites were 7.1 (AE2.9) and 4.1 (AE1.5), respectively (P < 0.001). The mean (AESD) DISCERN scores were 2.9 (AE0.7) and 2.3 (AE0.5), respectively (P ¼ 0.009). There was no statistically significant difference in scores for readability and technical qualities. Conclusions: While impartial sources and academic centers score higher on quality and reliability scores, their scores were also low. These findings are concerning as many consumers use the information provided by online websites to guide decisions regarding their health.

Assessing the Quality, Reliability, and Readability of Online Information on Dry Eye Disease

“…Most sites scored well when it related to technical qualities (0.8 ± 0.1) which were determined by evaluating the presence of 10 features as previously described. 14 This indicates that it is likely easy for patients to access and navigate each web site. One of the shortcomings for most sites was not being up to date (updated within a year) and lacking access to a blog.…”

“…Each web site underwent an evaluation of its quality, reliability, technical quality, and readability. 12 , 14 Two reviewers assessed each web site independently and were evaluated at similar times to avoid any web site updates or changes. Interrater reliability was assessed by comparing each reviewer's score for every web site analyzed.…”

“…The mean of the reviewers' scores was determined and used as the final overall score for that web site. 14 …”

“…13 There have been several studies that have assessed the quality, reliability, and readability of online information in many fields including plastic surgery, neurosurgery, and ophthalmology. 12,[14][15][16][17] However, there has yet to be an investigation of the online information relating to dry eye disease (DED). DED is a complex, multifactorial disease with many possible etiologies which affects approximately 14% of adults in the United States and is one of the most common reasons that patients seek eye care.…”

Evaluation of the quality and accuracy of breast cancer knowledge among persian language websites

“…HON (Health On the Net) Foundation issued a code of conduct (HON code) for medical and health websites to address the reliability and usefulness of medical information on the Internet. The principles of the HON code are authority, complementarity, confidentiality, attribution, justifiability, transparency of authorship, transparency of sponsorship, and honesty [ 34 , 35 ]. In this paper, depth of knowledge, the correctness of the information, accessibility, and up-to-datedness were the terms that were more discussed compared to the HON.…”