Journals / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2017 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3

Information on the Internet Regarding Orthognathic Surgery in Turkey: Is It an Adequate Guide for Potential Patients?

Pages
78–83
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall quality of information in 44.4% of the websites was low.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate the quality of information on websites regarding orthognathic surgery in Turkey using the DISCERN toolkit.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: An Internet search was performed using the Google search engine with the terms "orthognathic surgery", "jaw surgery", "jaw operation", "correcting jaw surgery", and "surgery orthodontics." The first 25 websites obtained after searching for each term were evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall quality of information in 44.4% of the websites was low.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the quality of information on websites regarding orthognathic surgery in Turkey using the DISCERN toolkit. Methods: An Internet search was performed using the Google search engine with the terms "orthognathic surgery", "jaw surgery", "jaw operation", "correcting jaw surgery", and "surgery orthodontics." The first 25 websites obtained after searching for each term were evaluated. Duplicate websites, advertisements, discussion groups, links to research articles, videos, and images were not considered. The remaining websites were analyzed using the DISCERN toolkit. This toolkit is composed of 15 questions that were scored from 1 to 5. Results were calculated as mean scores, percentages, and ranges.Results: Among the 36 evaluated websites, 12 (33.3%) belonged to plastic surgeons, 11 (30.6%) belonged to orthodontists, 8 (22.2%) belonged to private dental clinics, 3 (8.3%) belonged to maxillofacial surgeons, 1 (2.8%) was a professional organization website, and 1 (2.8%) belonged to a private hospital. The Turkish Orthodontic Society had the only listed professional organization website. The mean total DISCERN score was 28/75 . The overall quality of information in 44.4% of the websites was low. The main problems of websites were as follows: no mention of the aims, sources, and production time of information; no links for additional sources of information; and no information for patient carers. Conclusion: The quality of web-based information on orthognathic surgery was generally low. Higher quality information provided by public organizations that do not have profit concerns is required.

🔖

Cite This Article

CANIGÜR, N. B., TUNCER, B. B. (2017). Information on the Internet Regarding Orthognathic Surgery in Turkey: Is It an Adequate Guide for Potential Patients?. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3, 78–83. https://ajindex.com/articles/375069

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Patel U, Cobourne MT. Orthodontic extractions and the Internet: quality of online information available to the public. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011
  2. e103-9. [CrossRef] 2. Jiang YL. Quality evaluation of orthodontic information on the World Wide Web. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Jorgensen G. Social media basics for orthodontists. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012
  4. [CrossRef] 4. World Internet usage and population statistics. Available from: www. internetworldstats.com/stats.htm-accessed. Accessed on July 28, 2016. 5. Knosel M, Jung K. Informational value and bias of videos related to orthodontics screened on a video-sharing Web site. Angle Orthod 2011
  5. [CrossRef] 6. Fox S. The social life of health information. Available from: http:// www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/the-social-life-ofhealth-information/. Accessed on July 28, 2016. 7. Turkish Statistical Institute. Information and communication technology usage survey on households and individuals- 2015. Available from: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=18660. Accessed on July 29, 2016. 8. Patel A, Cobourne MT. The design and content of orthodontic practise websites in the UK is suboptimal and does not correlate with search ranking. Eur J Orthod 2015
  6. [CrossRef] 9. Pang PC, Chang S, Verspoor K, Pearce J. Designing Health Websites Based on Users' Web-Based Information-Seeking Behaviors: A Mixed-Method Observational Study. J Med Internet Res 2016
  7. e145. [CrossRef] 10. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999
  8. [CrossRef] 11. Aldairy T, Laverick S, McIntyre GT. Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the internet valid? Eur J Orthod 2012
  9. [CrossRef] 12. Charnock D, Shepperd S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res 2004
  10. [CrossRef] 13. Parekh J, Gill DS. The quality of orthodontic practice websites. Br Dent J 2014
  11. E21. [CrossRef] 14. McMorrow SM, Millett DT. Adult orthodontics: a quality assessment of internet information. J Orthod 2016
  12. [CrossRef] 15. Livas C, Delli K, Ren Y. Quality evaluation of the available Internet information regarding pain during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2013
  13. [CrossRef] 16. Pithon MM, d