Journals / Medicine Science / 2022 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1

Evaluation of internet information about pneumothorax

Pages
342–345
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)

As more and more people access the internet for health-related information, the need for search engines that only contain reliable health-related content is increasing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:To assess reliability and readability of online internet information on pneumothorax.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The terms “pneumothorax”, “tension pneumothorax”, “collapsed lung” and, “chest tube” were searched in a search engine in 3 different geographic location via VPN. 507 unsuitable websites were excluded from 600 websites obtained as a result of scanning. 93 websites were included in the analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As more and more people access the internet for health-related information, the need for search engines that only contain reliable health-related content is increasing.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

To assess reliability and readability of online internet information on pneumothorax. The terms “pneumothorax”, “tension pneumothorax”, “collapsed lung” and, “chest tube” were searched in a search engine in 3 different geographic location via VPN. 507 unsuitable websites were excluded from 600 websites obtained as a result of scanning. 93 websites were included in the analysis. Reliability of information was evaluated using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, National Library of Medicine (NLM) trustworthy score and the Health on the Net code (HONcode) seal accreditation. Readability was evaluated using the Flesh-Kincaid reading scores and other readability formulas. Of the 93 websites, 45 (48.3%) has HONcode certified. The mean JAMA benchmarks score was 2.04 (±1.01) and National library of medicine trustworthy score was 6.38 (±2.25). The mean Flesh-Kincaid Ease Score of the articles was 47.99 (±17.80). All articles were of at least a high school sophomore grade level (15-16 years old) according to Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level, SMOG, Gunning Fog, Coleman-Liau, and Automated Readability Index. The reliability scores of most websites were found to be considerable low and readability was poor. As more and more people access the internet for health-related information, the need for search engines that only contain reliable health-related content is increasing.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDIN, S., GENCER, A., DUMANLI, A. (2022). Evaluation of internet information about pneumothorax. Medicine Science, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 342–345. https://ajindex.com/articles/418453

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Rofaiel R, Chande N. Biologic agents in inflammatory bowel disease – quality of internet website information. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2018;24:336
  2. Johnson J. Internet users in the world 2020 [Internet]. Statista. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-populationworldwide/ [cited 2020 Dec 13]
  3. Kaicker J, Dang W. Assessing the quality and reliability of health information on ERCP Using The DISCERN Instrument. Health Care: Current Reviews 2016;4
  4. Thakurdesai PA, Kole PL, Pareek RP. Evaluation of the quality and contents of diabetes mellitus patient education on Internet. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53:309–13
  5. OʼNeill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C, et al. Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the internet. Spine. 2014;39:E645–9
  6. Joury A, Joraid A, Alqahtani F, et al. The variation in quality and content of patient-focused health information on the Internet for otitis media. Child Care Health Dev. 2018;44:221–6
  7. Al-Bahrani A, Plusa S. The quality of patient-orientated internet information on colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2004;6:323–6
  8. Alsaiari A, Joury A, Aljuaid M, et al. The content and quality of health information on the internet for patients and families on adult kidney cancer. J Cancer Educ. 2017;32:878–84
  9. Bartmann B, Schallock H, Dubois C, et al. Internet information on oral cancer drugs: a critical comparison between website providers. J Cancer Educ. 2020;30
  10. Grewal P, Alagaratnam S. The quality and readability of colorectal cancer information on the internet. Int J Surg. 2013;11:410–3
  11. López-Jornet P, Camacho-Alonso F. The quality of internet sites providing information relating to oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2009;45:e95–8
  12. Peterson MW, Fretz PC. Patient use of the internet for information in a lung cancer clinic. Chest. 2003;123:452–7
  13. Li Y, Zhou X, Zhou Y, et al. Evaluation of the quality and readability of online information about breast cancer in China. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104:858-64
  14. Akbari K, Som R. Evaluating the quality of internet information for bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2014;24:2003–6
  15. Corcelles R, Daigle CR, Talamas HR, et al. Assessment of the quality of Internet information on sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11:539–44
  16. Elliott AD, Bartel AFP, Simonson D, et al. Is the internet a reliable source of information for patients seeking total ankle replacement? J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;54:378–81.