Readability, understandability, and quality of retinopathy of prematurity information on the web

Abstract

Background The purpose of this study is to assess the readability, understandability, and quality of information on retinopathy of prematurity presented at websites frequently visited by parents. Methods A total of 220 websites were assessed, which were recruited by searching for “retinopathy of prematurity” at the Google search engine. The readability of each web page was assessed by Flesch Reading Ease Score, Gobbledygook's Gunning Frequency, Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman Liau score, The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Fry Graph Readability Formula, and Automated readability score. The understandability of the web pages included in the study was measured by using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool. Quality was evaluated using Health in Net code and JAMA. The ALEXA traffic tool was used to reference the domains' popularity and visibility. Results Sixty‐four websites were included to the study. The average Flesch Reading Ease Score was 50.1 ± 11.4, Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook level was 13.4 ± 2.5, The Flesch–Kincaid Grade level was 10.7 ± 2.2, Coleman Liau level was 10.8 ± 1.7, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook level was 10.0 ± 1.9, and Fry Graph Readability Formula 11.9 ± 2.7, Automated readability score 10.4 ± 2.5. The average understandability score for all website‐based patient education materials was 76.9 ± 15.2. Total JAMA Benchmark score is 2.27 ± 1.14 (range from 1 to 4). The quality of information at most websites were determined by our chosen assessments to not to be good. Conclusion Websites addressed to parents for retinopathy of prematurity had found to have high understandability. It was concluded based on this study that readability and quality of presented written materials at online sources need to be improved.

Readability of Online Materials Related to Vocal Cord Leukoplakia

“…In this study, the 22 sites with online education materials related to vocal cord leukoplakia were written at readability levels above those recommended by the AMA/NIH. These results are consistent with many other readability studies that have been published within otolaryngology 7,8,20,28–33 and other specialties 34–43 …”

“…These results are consistent with many other readability studies that have been published within otolaryngology 7,8,20,[28][29][30][31][32][33] and other specialties. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] Similarly, PEMAT-P understandability and actionability scores were low. The understandability score of 73.65% 6 7.05% in this study is comparable but a bit higher than that of similar studies on other topics, which reported scores ranging from 62.8% to 66.0%.…”

Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online information on Behçet’s disease

“…In our study, no significant relationship was found between popularity (Alexa, Compete, WebRank) and readability or typologies. Our findings were like those reported in the literature (45,46). We found a significant difference between the top 10 websites and other websites based on their Alexa scores.…”

“…Alexa (https://www.alexa.com/) is a popular traffic engine (29), and it's frequently used to assess area visibility and popularity. It compares the number of times a website has been visited in the last three months to the number of times other websites have been visited.…”