Evaluation of internet information about pneumothorax

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.

PDF

___

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.

17. Guo W, Wang W, Xu D, et al. Evaluating the quality, content, and readability of online resources for failed back spinal surgery: SPINE 2019;44:494–502. 18. Haymes AT. The quality of rhinoplasty health information on the internet. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:143–9.

19. Fisher JH, O’Connor D, Flexman AM, et al. Accuracy and reliability of internet resources for information on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194:218–25.

20. Joury AU, Alshathri M, Alkhunaizi M, et al. Internet websites for chest pain symptoms demonstrate highly variable content and quality. Choo EK, editor. Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23:1146–52.

21. Jayasinghe R, Ranasinghe S, Jayarajah U, Seneviratne S. Quality of online information for the general public on COVID-19. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103:2594–7.

22. Al-Shokri SD, Ahmed AOE, Saleh AO, et al. Case Report: COVID-19– related pneumothorax—case series highlighting a significant complication. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;103:1166–9.

23. Alhakeem A, Khan MM, Soub HA, et al. Case Report: COVID-19– associated bilateral spontaneous pneumothorax—a literature review. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;103:1162–5.

24. Aydin S, Oz G, Dumanli A, et al. A case of spontaneous pneumothorax in Covid-19 pneumonia. J Surg Res. 2020;(96):101.

25. Fahad AM, Mohammad AA, Al‐Khalidi HA, et al. Spontaneous pneumothorax as a complication in COVID‐19 male patient: A case report. Clin Case. 2020;8:3116-9.

26. Johnson J. Search engine market share worldwide [Internet]. Statista. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwidemarket- share-of-search-engines/ [cited 2020 Dec 13].

27. Boyer C, Dolamic L. Automated detection of honcode website conformity compared to manual detection: an evaluation. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17:e135.

28. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277:1244–5.

29. Lee MA, Shin C-N, An K. Trustworthiness, readability, and suitability of web-based information for stroke prevention and self-management for korean americans: critical evaluation. Interact J Med Res. 2018;7:e10440.

30. Readable | Free Readability Test Tool [Internet]. Available from: https:// www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/ [cited 2020 Dec 13].

31. Szmuda T, Ozdemir C, Ali S, et al. Readability of online patient education material for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a cross-sectional health literacy study. Public Health. 2020;185:21–5.

32. Lee S, Shin JJ, Haro MS, et al. Evaluating the quality of internet information for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2014;30:1372–9.

33. Prasanth AS, Jayarajah U, Mohanappirian R, et al. Assessment of the quality of patient-oriented information over internet on testicular cancer.

34. Olkun HK, Demirkaya AA, Aras B. The quality of Internet information on lingual orthodontics in the English language, with DISCERN and JAMA. J Orthod. 2019;46:20–6.

35. Rothrock SG, Rothrock AN, Swetland SB, et al. Quality, trustworthiness, readability, and accuracy of medical information regarding common pediatric emergency medicine-related complaints on the web. J Emerg Med. 2019;57:469–77.

36. Eltorai AEM, Ghanian S, Adams CA, et al. Readability of patient education materials on the american association for surgery of trauma website. Arch Trauma Res. 2014;3:e18161

37. Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, et al. Readability of online health information: a meta-narrative systematic review. Am J Med Qual Off J Am Coll Med Qual. 2018;33:487–92.