Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure: an assessment of the quality and readability of online information

Abstract

Purpose Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure is an established procedure carried out by interventional radiologists to achieve portal decompression and to manage the complications of portal hypertension. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of information available online for TIPS procedure. Methods Websites were identified using the search terms “TIPS procedure”, “TIPSS procedure”, “transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedure”, with the first 25 pages from the three most popular search engines (Google, Bing and Yahoo) being selected for evaluation with a total of 225. Each Website was grouped by authorship into one of five categories: (1) Physician, (2) Academic, (3) For-profit, (4) Non-profit (including government and public health), or (5) Other (discussion/social media). Readability of each Website was assessed using the Flesch-Reading Ease score, Flesch–Kincaid grade level, Gunning-Fog Index, Coleman–Liau and SMOG index. Quality was calculated using the DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and the presence of Health on the Net (HON) code certification. Results After disregarding duplicate and non-accessible Websites a total of 81 were included. The mean DISCERN score assessing the quality of information provided by Websites was “good” (59.3 ± 10.2) with adherence to the JAMA Benchmark being 54.3%. Websites with HON-code certification were statistically significantly higher in terms of DISCERN (p = 0.034) and JAMA scores (p = 0.003) compared to HON-code negative sites. The readability scores of Websites ranged from 10 to 12th grade across calculators. Thirty-two out of the 81 Websites were targeted towards patients (39.5%), 46 towards medical professionals (56.8%) and 3 were aimed at neither (3.7%). The medical professional aimed Websites were statistically significantly more difficulty to read across all readability formulas (all p < 0.001). Conclusion While quality of online information available to patients is “good”, the average readability for information on the internet for TIPS is set far above the recommended 7th-grade level. Academic Websites were of the highest quality, yet most challenging for the general public to read. These findings call for the production of high-quality and comprehensible content around TIPS procedure, where physicians can reliably direct their patients for information.

Online Patient Education Materials on Iron Deficiency Anemia Are Too Difficult to Read and Low Quality: A Readability and Quality Analysis

“…Scientific journals had the highest quality typology and all scientific journal web pages were high quality. Kaya & Görmez [17] and Lim et al [30] similarly found scientific journals to have the highest quality typology. In contrast, Basavakumar et al [15] and Chumber et al [28] found non-profit and health portal web pages to be of the highest quality, respectively.…”

“…HONcode certification requires a fiscal contribution according to the type of website and its visibility: a commercial website with high visibility costs $385 versus a non-commercial website with low visibility, which costs $65. Further, the contribution must be renewed annually when the site is reevaluated [30].…”

Evaluation of the reliability and readability of ChatGPT-4 responses regarding hypothyroidism during pregnancy

“…Finally, the readability of ChatGPT was evaluated using widely used Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) Score, Flesch–Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) tools (Table 2 ) 21 . The FRE score ranges from 0 to 100; the higher the score, the easier to read the passage.…”

YouTube as a platform for knowledge and awareness of peritoneal dialysis: A content analysis

“…14 The JAMA scoring system was published as a suggestion for a basic quality standard for information on healthcare by Silberg et al in 1997, and it consists of four criteria with one point for each criterion and a total possible score of four points. 19,20 Similar to other quality scores discussed above, the JAMA benchmarks were widely used for evaluating the reliability and quality of the medical videos 14,19,21 Inter-rater reliability was evaluated for the three scoring systems (JAMA, GQS and DISCERN) using inter-class correlation estimates and their 95% confidence interval (inter-class correlation was >90% for all scoring systems). Variables were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test.…”

“…14 The JAMA scoring system was published as a suggestion for a basic quality standard for information on healthcare by Silberg et al in 1997, and it consists of four criteria with one point for each criterion and a total possible score of four points. 19,20 Similar to other quality scores discussed above, the JAMA benchmarks were widely used for evaluating the reliability and quality of the medical videos 14,19,21…”